Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present to this honourable House a Petition signed by 2,653 electors and residents of Colchester. This Petition is in the same terms as that from 10,000 electors and residents of Ipswich, which I had the honour to present to this House two days ago.

The Petition calls attention to the inadequacy of the salaries now paid to nurses and other hospital staff, and to the fact that owing to the recent advances in medical science, the work of nursing has become more arduous and intensive than it was in earlier days, and it points out that an efficient hospital service cannot be built up or maintained without an adequate number of nurses and other hospital staff.

The Petitioners therefore ask, first, for an increase in salaries as a matter of urgency, an increase which should not be limited to 2½ per cent.; and, secondly, for a review of the whole nurses' salaries structure. They express disappointment that two debates in this House during the present year have evoked no satisfactory response from Her Majesty's Government.

On a paint of order. Perhaps it may be in order for me, as the hon. Member involved, merely to say that this Petition was organised on party poltical lines, without reference to me—

That is wholly out of order.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting the important subject of Commonwealth Preference for our first debate today.

My chief reason for wanting this debate is that in recent months some amazing statements have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by people outside it, about Commonwealth Preference, and I wanted the chance of trying to refute some of those things—a chance that one probably would not get in a debate on Common Market negotiations. Further, it is a fitting subject to discuss on the last day before the Summer Recess, especially in existing circumstances.

I might add that I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being in his place today. I think that, when he replies, he will be making his first speech in his new office.

The first statement to which I want to refer is that made in a debate at the beginning of June that Commonwealth Preference began at Ottawa. It is true that the present system, as we know it, began at Ottawa, but the principle of giving some kind of priority to Empire trade goes back, not thirty years, but about three hundred years. It dates from the Navigation Acts of Cromwell and Charles II. If anyone doubts my word on that, there is confirmation in a very excellent booklet produced by the Central Office of Information and entitled "Commonwealth Preference", which makes this point, and many other points.

Even preferences themselves date from the 1820s at the latest. At that time, British goods entering the Colonies enjoyed preferences of from 7 per cent. to 15 per cent. and, in return, we gave preferences on such colonial products as sugar, wheat, timber and wine. It is undeniable that that system helped to build up the economic strength of the British Empire, as it was then called.

Just over a century ago, the whole of that system was swept away when free trade came into being. It was brought back by the Commonwealth only about thirty years later, and it was Canada which led the way, certainly in relation to the United Kingdom, by granting, in 1898, preferences on our exports of manufactured goods. The lead given by the Canadians was followed in fairly quick succession by New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. For twenty years that unilateral preference was given by those four Commonwealth countries.

The result was a great success. That system not only increased exports from the United Kingdom to those four Commonwealth countries, but it also— and this is, perhaps, a rather strange result—increased exports from those countries to the United Kingdom. In other words, the preference agreement in one direction stimulated trade in both directions, which means that a unilateral preference is nearly as good—as this piece of history shows—as a reciprocal one.

Not until 1919 did this country reciprocate. Indeed, it could not do so —at least, until about 1915—because we were a free trade country, but it did give preferences in return in 1919, and some of those preferences, together with others introduced in the years that followed, gradually developed on a limited scale into some sort of preferential system which continued until we get to the time of Ottawa, with which I shall deal in a moment.

I have heard some hon. Members ask, "Some Commonwealth countries do not grant us preference, so why should we worry about them?" It is perfectly true that in Africa, for example, six countries do not. They are Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar—and there are other, smaller, ones in other parts of the world. That is not their fault. The reason is that treaty obligations entered into by Britain, mainly in the last century, precluded their discriminaiting between any foreign countries and ourselves.

Ghana, for instance, is bound by the Anglo-Dutch Convention of 1871, so that anyone objecting to that should blame, not President Nkrumah, but Mr. Gladstone. Nigeria is affected by the Anglo-French Convention of 1898. It is true that that Convention was abrogated by the French in 1936, and I am only sorry that the pre-war National Government, and the Labour Govern- ment after the war—and, for that matter, the war-time Coalition Government— did nothing to introduce a preference system into Nigeria. Nigeria has a population of 35 million, so that it is quite important from the point of view of exports.

The other countries are involved (because of the Congo Basin Treaties, again dating from the 1880s and 1890s Those treaties are too difficult for me even to try to explain. I believe that they are so complicated that they could not be unravelled when the Government thought about doing so a few years ago. It is, therefore, in no way the fault of present Commonwealth Governments that they do not grant us preference.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that last year we had a favourable balance of trade with those six African countries which do not grant us any preference. Our exports to them totalled £172 million, and our imports from them, £128 million. Those figures exclude the value of the trade in gold. It is impossible to quote a figure there because, except in an annual statement, the Board of Trade maintains strict secrecy about that trade. But the figures available clearly show that preferences do not need to be reciprocal, and that unilateral preferences are at least nearly as good.

The proceedings at Ottawa resulted in 12 trade agreements being reached; seven of them between the United Kingdom and various Commonwealth countries—including the Irish Free State, as it was then called, and South Africa— and five agreements between Commonwealth countries themselves. The result was an undoubted success. Between 1932 and the outbreak of war, there was an increase in trade between Britain and the Commonwealth. There was also an increase in trade between Britain and the rest of the world; in other words, the recovery of the Commonwealth from the world depression also helped other countries.

The third argument I want to refute is the very defeatist one that the Commonwealth Preference system is, in any case, being weakened, and that nobody wants to see it revived. It is quite true that it has been weakened, and the first reason for that is that we started retreating from Ottawa even before the war, the express example being the Anglo-American Trade Agreement of 1938, by which the preference of 2s. a quarter on wheat was abolished and other concessions were made, in return, of course, for some reduction in the United States tariffs. It is only fair to add that Canada, too, was involved in a triangular arrangement.

Since the war, the whole system has been weakened by the erosion of specific preferences by inflation. It has also been weakened by G.A.T.T., which froze the whole system at 1947 levels, except for one or two colonial waivers. It is true, also, that some Commonwealth countries—Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand—requested the revision downwards of the Ottawa agreements.

The reason for that was that the system had become unbalanced because the ad valorem duties had maintained their value unaltered, whereas the specific ones had not. The majority of those preferences granted by Commonwealth countries are on ad valorem basis or on an ad valorem plus-specific basis, and many of those we grant to Commonwealth countries, especially on foodstuffs, are on a specific basis; for example, 9s. 4d. per owt. on cocoa, and 1s. 6½d. per 1b. on tobacco. I am glad that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), in this year's Budget, reduced the duties on sugar, cocoa and coffee, because that had the effect of increasing the proportion of preferences without violating G.A.T.T. by increasing the margin.

I return to this argument about no one wanting to see the system revised. Of one thing I am certain; that only four years ago—and, more recently, last September—the Commonwealth countries made it abundantly clear that they did not want to see the system weakened. I quote from paragraph 7 of the Report issued at the end of the Montreal Conference of September, 1958. It stated:

"Commonwealth participation in the Preferential system has proved to be of mutual benefit and we have no intention of discarding or weakening it."

That was a clear statement which did not say anything about the Rome Agreement or anything else.

Paragraph 28 of that Report stated:

"The Conference re-affirmed the importance of the rôle that preferences have played and continue to play in Commonwealth economic relations."

It added that the Commonwealth countries had continued to adhere to the preferential system while adjusting their policies to the requirements of changes in the scope and character of world trade. Paragraph 31 of the Report contained this statement:

"The United Kingdom Government confirmed its intention of maintaining as an important element in the preferential system the free and unrestricted entry of nearly all goods imported from the Commonwealth."

Then there was the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Conference at Accra last September. I should, perhaps, give it its correct title, the Conference of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council, which was set up at the Montreal Conference. This Finance Ministers' Conference resulted in a rather lengtlhy communique in which, in paragraph 8, there appeared this definite statement:

"They"—

that is, The Commonwealth Representatives—

"reaffirmed the value and importance they attach to traditional Commonwealth trading arrangements under which most foodstuffs and raw materials and manufactures enter the United Kingdom free of duty with, in most cases, preferential advantages, and other Commonwealth countries make reciprocal tariff concessions. The benefits of these arrangements have accrued to the United Kingdom as well as to other Commonwealth countries."

I now refer to the memorandum sent out by the Commonwealth Producers' Association, of which I am chairman at the moment, to all hon. Members last May. That stressed the point that free and unrestricted entry is of vital importance to many Commonwealth producers. It also made the point that worldwide commodity agreements are unlikely to solve the problem because there is no element of preference in them. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a form of preference and there are preferences in addition to that for sugar which is not covered by that agreement.

Most Commonwealth producers think that there is very little chance of any world commodity agreements being reached for meat and dairy produce, Moreover, there are small producers of commodities like raw fruit, dried and canned fruit and wine which cannot but be worried not only at the possible loss of preference—and in this I include Australia, for example—but also by the danger of reverse preferences being put on against them as well.

I turn to the preferences granted by the Commonwealth countries on United Kingdom exports. Indeed, I was rather surprised at the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, when he answered a question a few days ago. When asked about the continuation of Commonwealth preferences to British traders he replied that it was a matter for the Commonwealth Governments concerned. But speaking in a two-day debate on the Common Market negotiations, exactly a year ago, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the President of the Board of Trade, said:

"We are still accorded preference over about half our exports to the Commonwealth on an average of 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. It is very important indeed for our engineering, chemical and other industries, and is clearly a matter which we must bear in mind in our discussions just as much as we bear in mind Commonwealth sales in England."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1604.]

That was a most important statement and since it contained the phrase "we must bear in mind", the Board of Trade is clearly interested in the fate of British exports. It would seem that the Foreign Office is a little more detached.

I now refer to the most defeatist argument of all; that the revival of an exclusive system such as Commonwealth preferences is impossible in the condition of the world today. It is important to remember that the system constructed at Ottawa was not an exclusive one— certainly it was not as exclusive as the E.E.C. sometimes looks like becoming —because it was for a moderate level of preferences and at best the result was that we conducted 50 per cent. of our trade with the Commonwealth and the other 50 per cent. with foreign countries. For Commonwealth countries as a whole the proportion was about the same. No one can call such a system exclusive.

In any case, why should it be impossible to do this in conditions as they are today? There is only one reason; that the United States does not want it. Since the Ottawa agreements were signed, the United States Government have worked hard to undo them. Their first success was the Anglo-American Trade Agreement of 1938, to which I have referred. Their next step was to insist on inserting in the Lend-Lease Agreement during the war the promise from us that we would work towards the

"… elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce and a reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers."

I would interpose that a tariff is not necessarily a trade barrier but a means of regulating trade. That attitude became a feature of the United States economic policy all through the war and it was repeated in the Atlantic Charter, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) succeeded in getting inserted into that document the phrase:

"… with due regard for our existing obligations"

whach was meant to maintain our rights over Commonwealth preferences.

The United States' attitude culminated in compelling us, in return for the American Loan, to promise not to increase existing preferences or introduce any new ones pending the outcome of the International Conference on Trade and Employment. That conference was held in 1947 and produced G.A.T.T. and the rigid no-new-preferences rule. G.A.T.T. succeeded in preventing any new preferences, except the colonial waiver. That is all it has done in that direction.

In almost every other way trade discrimination is absolutely rampant and the United States is a leading exponent of it. One flagrant example is the United States tariff on woollen goods. In 1957, the United States nearly doubled its rate of duty on imports in excess of 14 million pounds. I will not go into the details of this, because they are rather lengthy. I will merely say that this has the effect of discriminating in favour of French, Italian and Japanese woollen goods against those from the United Kingdom. The result has been a decrease in the exports of woollen goods from this country to America. That is, indeed, a flagrant example of discrimination.

There are also the various agreements which the United States has made bilaterally with many foreign countries to sell surplus farm produce. There was one, for example, over wheat to Brazil in which America gave Brazil forty years to pay, not in dollars but in cruzeiros. In one year the United States negotiated no fewer than 38 new agreements with 25 different countries for the disposal of surplus produce.

There was an example of flag discrimination between the United States and India over the shipment of 17 million tons of grains in the four years following the agreement in 1956. In other words, non-discrimination, which was the keynote of American tariff policy until the woollen agreement of 1957, is a mockery because it does not exist. G.A.T.T. is not more effective in enforcing non-discrimination than the Volstead Act was in enforcing prohibition in the United States between the wars—perhaps with this difference, that whereas the United States Government did not engage in any illicit liquor deals, it seemed to be one of the leading bootleggers so far as discrimination was concerned.

I do not complain about these deals; they are perfectly legitimate policy if the United States wants to engage in them. What I object to most strongly is when they prevent us, by bringing in pressures like G.A.T.T., from using tariff discrimination in favour of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Preference system has ever done the United States any direct harm. From 1898 onwards, when the Dominions granted Britain unilateral preference, there was a striking increase in trade between Commonwealth countries in both directions.

Also, in the same period the United States exports exactly doubled, although their population increased by only 30 per cent. Similarly, during the 1932–38 period when there were equally striking increases in Commonwealth trade, United States exports again doubled, although its population increased by only about 3 per cent.

I should like to see the Government challenge the United States to state what harm Commonwealth Preference has done to its trade. During the war a report was published by two Americans and entitled, "The United States in the World Economy". They had been instructed by the State Department to inquire into the position. That report stressed that the nations of the Commonwealth and the sterling area had led the world in recovery from the depression of the 1930s and had helped the United States and the rest of the world. I know that Commonwealth Preference has prevented the United States from doing what some Americans would have liked to do—that is, to capture all the markets of the Commonwealth with subsidised exports which are merely an overspill of the huge American home market. But that would bring no benefit to anyone, not even the United States in the long run.

We talk glibly about the Common Market and the free trade area. I want to stress that the E.E.C. is not yet the Common Market, nor is E.F.T.A. a free trade area. Both are preferential areas for manufactured goods exactly similar in principle at the moment to the Commonwealth Preference areas. That is partly the reason for their success, and that is why I believe that we should first have brought the Commonwealth Preference system up to date before opening negotiations with the E.E.C.

There is no better way of bringing the Commonwealth Preference system up to date than that described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in their book A Call to the Commonwealth which I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say, in answer to a Question yesterday, that he was reading. Having carried out that procedure, we should then apply for association with the E.E.C. under Article 238. That, I believe, is the best way the Commonwealth can help Europe and Europe can help the Commonwealth. I believe it to be the true solution to our problems of today.

I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) for raising this issue, because the Commonwealth Preference system has certainly been a great help to us in the past. It undoubtedly considerably assisted our recovery from the 1929 slump. But, in my judgment, this is much less valuable today and I do not think that we should exaggerate its value.

Viewed in the context of our Common Market application, some people regard it as a kind of alternative to the Common Market—that is to say, go into the Common Market and abandon Commonwealth Preference, or stay out and keep it. In that context I believe that Commonwealth Preference has an altogether insufficient value today to be a factor in these calculations.

I have said that it is no longer as valuable as before, and this, of course, is demonstrably true because our margins of preference have been cut by more than half in twenty-five years— that is to say from 11 per cent. to between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. They have been considerably reduced in successive tariff negotiations and, of course, under G.A.T.T. new preferences are not allowed. Moreover, as many of the margins of preference granted to United Kingdom goods in Commonwealth markets were specific, in contradistinction to ad valorem, the post-war rise in prices has greatly reduced their value.

Of course, we should not consider the preference margins in isolation. They must be considered together with the quota system and also together with the tariff level. It is not much use having a margin of preference over foreign competitors if one is prevented from trading by quota restrictions. Commonwealth countries do not discriminate in favour of the United Kingdom in the fields of quota. Nor is it much use having preference if the tariff is in any case too high.

Let me give an example of one trade, that of the British paper and board makers. Up to about two years ago the average tariff on their products was £13 and in the last two years this has been raised by approximately £14 10s. increasing the tariff from £13 to £27 10s. per ton.

Would Dhe hon. Gentleman explain whose tariff he is describing?

I am sorry if I did not mention the country. This is the Australian tariff.

Whether we like it not, we have to face the position as it is, and that is that Commonwealth countries have altered the pattern of preference, lowering it by negotiation to suit the interests of their own trade, just as from time to time they impose quotas and raise tariffs which hit British exports.

I make no criticism whatever of this, because the first duty of any Government is to protect its own people, and if commonwealtlh countries find that this is the best way of establishing their own industries and consider that this is the best policy in the long-term interests of their people, of course they are undoubtedly righit to do it. But when they say to the British exporter that they have raised the tariff or placed a quota restriction against his goods, they do not go on to say"But, of course, we have found an alternative market for you". In my view, therefore, they are hardly entitled to be insistent that it is now our duty to find other markets for them if some are closed as a result of our entry into E.E.C.

Of course, the attenuation of Commonwealth Preference is one of the principal factors in the falling off of Commonwealth trade. Thus United Kingdom exports to the Commonwealth, which accounted for nearly 50 per cent. of our total exports in 1957, accounted for only 44 per cent. of the total in 1961. Similarly, Commonwealth imports into the United Kingdom declined from over 45 per cent. of all imports in 1957 to less than 42 per cent. in 1961.

Thus, in spite of some Commonwealth Preferences, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South attaches such importance, the fact is that Commonwealth trade is steadily declining year by year. I contrast this picture with our trade with the E.E.C. countries During exactly the same period, from 1957 to 1961, our exports to the six E.E.C. countries rose from less than 14 per cent. to almost 17 per cent., and Common Market imports into the United Kingdom rose from 12 per cent. to 15½ per cent.

I hope that this brief summary of the situation puts the value of Commonwealth Preferences today in somewhat clearer focus and more accurately weighs its importance in the modern world.

I do not think that percentages give the true position. Has my hon. Friend the actual figures? I think I am right in saying that, on the figures, the increase in Commonwealth trade is greater than the increase in E.E.C. trade.

Will the hon. Member take it from me that the figures he has given are wholly wrong and that I shall give the right ones presently?

With respect, they are not wholly wrong. They are perfectly accurate statistics taken from the Board of Trade's figures. I have given the figures in terms of percentage, and they are accurate.

rose—

I cannot give way again. I have only a short time, and other Members wish to take part in the debate. It is foolish to suggest that the Board of Trade figures are wholly wrong.

It is no good our trying to live in the past. We must look to the future. It is no secret that I desperately hope that our negotiations will be successful and that we shall join the Common Market. I want us to join the bloc to which our trade, without any preference, is expanding, even if we may unfortunately lose some of our exports to the Commonwealth in which our trade, in spite of Commonwealth preferences, is declining.

To put it in another way, on our doorstep is a market of 170 million people, or, if we succeed in joining, 220 million, or, again, if the other countries of Europe come in, as many as 250 million. What alternative has the Commonwealth to offer? It is the developed parts of the Commonwealth which matter to us because they alone have the purchasing power to buy British goods. The total population of Australia, Canada and New Zealand together is 30·4 million—and they are a long way away compared with a present market of 170 million, and 220 million when we go in.

It is quite wrong to think that the Commonwealth can provide us with a compensating alternative market if by the common external tariff we are cut off from trading with the Six. In my view, therefore, it is wrong to use a sentimental attachment to what is left of Commonwealth Preference and its usefulnes as an argument for not entering Europe. I very much hope that wiser counsels will prevail.

I am very glad to support the propositions outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). As the House may know, I am utterly opposed to Britain entering the Common Market. One of my reasons is that it will mean the changing and disappearance of Commonwealth Preference.

No.

I was greatly surprised last Thursday when, being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) to give a breakdown of our expected exports into and imports from Europe if we enter the Common Market, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade replied that such figures, if accurate, would be useful but that

"changes in the level of imports and exports if we enter the Common Market would depend on a very wide range of factors, including the level of demand and prosperity, both at home and in our overseas markets".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 1709.]

In other words, there are no figures and no forecasts. To my mind, this is quite extraordinary. We are being asked to support entry into Europe but we are not even told how our trade is expected to be affected. I, for one, do not intend to buy a pig in a poke, and I do not think that the British public does either.

Since 1918, our trade with the six countries in toto has never been in our favour. No one has ever told me why it should suddenly become so in 1963. I add to this that the pro-marketeers and the Government themselves have said that if we enter the Common Market the cost of foodstuffs will go up. What effect will this have on our wage and salary bills and on the cost of our products? How much more money shall we have to provide for pensions? What revenue shall we lose if tariffs are swept away or reduced? I hope that the Front Bench will answer these questions.

It is significant that between 1950 and 1960 exports to the Commonwealth expanded in a remarkable way. This is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay). The increase in our exports to the Commonwealth by 1960 as compared with 1950 was no less than £451 million. This, of course, was in large measure due to the Commonwealth Preferences which we enjoyed. In those years, the percentage increase to Canada was 705 per cent. and to New Zealand it was 395 per cent. Have the Government worked out what damage we shall suffer if these preferences are abolished? I should like to know. They have been remarkably silent about it.

I oppose entry into the Common Market also because of the damage it will do to our agriculture. I am not a farmer, but it seems to me that our agriculture and the system surrounding it fit in very well with the import policy we have in relation to Commonwealth foodstuffs. We boast of the prosperity of our agriculture, which is up by 70 per cent. over the pre-war level. Why tamper with something which is working perfectly well? Why jeopardise it? I want to know.

Last year, our farmers spent about £900 million on industrial goods and services. If one adds the personal spending of fanners, farm labourers and employees, one sees that British agriculture bought twice as much from British industry as all the Common Market countries put together. This is an excellent record. It has been attained by the British people because agriculture and its affairs are under our own control. No one has yet explained to me why Britain's affairs, and her agricultural affairs in particular, will be better dealt with by six foreign nations in Brussels than by the House of Commons in Westminster.

I also oppose our entry into Europe on Commonwealth grounds. Personally, I was much struck last September when every Finance Minister of the Common- wealth expressed concern at Accra at our approach to the Six. All sorts of doubts have been expressed since then, and, in my view, our relations with our own people overseas are more strained than they have been for years. I am very much grieved that this should be so under a Tory Government. I should have thought that of all parties the Conservative Party was the most concerned to expand Commonwealth trade, to develop the Commonwealth and to look after its interests. But this does not seem to be the fact at the moment, and I regret it.

I remind the House that our trade with the Commonwealth far exceeds in value and quantity our trade with the Six. This, of course, is largely due to our having preferential treatment arrangements. The potential in the Commonwealth is enormous—600 million people and untold mineral resources. Parts of Australia, a country I know, and of Canada are still unexplored. We do not know what may be there. We have preferential arrangements with these lands.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the industrial might of Europe properly organised, we could invest in and build up the economies of the under-developed parts of the Commonwealth and expand trade generally?

No. There is no need to go into the Common Market in order to invest in the Commonwealth. There is nothing to stop Germans and Frenchmen investing there now.

They are doing so.

Then let them continue.

Much of our trade and commerce with the Commonwealth is, I believe, due to the preferential arrangements which we have and the Commonwealth's outlook is orientated towards Britain. It seems to me absolutely crazy and utter madness to throw away the privileged position which we have. It seems from what the Lord Privy Seal said some days ago that we are to abandon preferences which we give Commonwealth countries on their manufactured goods coming into this country—about £70 million worth per annum. It also seems clear to me that if we enter the Common Market we shall have to put up tariffs against the Commonwealth.

I wish to make it clear that I have no mandate from my constituents in South Edinburgh to support any such alteration, and I do not think that the Government have any mandate from the country to do this. In short, I am not prepared to support any policy by which this country treats its own people overseas, the Queen's subjects, worse than it treats Germans. Frenchmen or Italians.

I wish to make one further point about Commonwealth Preferences and trade with the Commonwealth and with the Common Market. I was not elected as a Unionist Member of Parliament to lessen or to abandon British sovereignty. I wonder whether the public know how much we will be restricted if we sign the Treaty of Rome. Tariff and other trade arrangements will not be under our control; they will be under the control of a body in Brussels. We will not be able to alter or to adjust Commonwealth Preferences. If we wish to make new trade treaties, we will not be able to do so unless the other six countries agree. The Court of Justice, situated on the Continent, will be able to give judgments affecting this country, companies in it and even individuals in it. There is no appeal. All kinds of directives can be given and we will have to carry them out, whether we like them or not. Parliament will lose some of its power. Do the British people realise all this? I pray that they will wake up very quickly and will learn the threats which face them.

I believe most firmly that the people of this country wish to retain their freedom of action in economic and all other affairs. Since I have taken an interest in politics, I have never heard anybody ask for the abandonment of Commonwealth Preference. I have heard adjustments suggested, but I have never heard it said that the principle should be given up. I very much hope, therefore, that the people of this country will realise what is happening and will rise in their wrath and make it clear that they do not wish us to join the Six.

I think that a few facts would be helpful in this controversy, and I should like first, to say a word or two about the preference which we give in our markets here to imports from the Commonwealth. In the discussions and debates now going on, and in some of the Lord Privy Seal's statements, the issue is treated as if what we were discussing, and what was at stake, was the end of Commonwealth Preference in the United Kingdom market. But this is not by any means the main issue at stake. What is at stake is the free and unrestricted entry of foodstuffs and raw materials into the British market.

It is possible to get rid of Commonwealth Preference, which is the phrase that the Lord Privy Seal always uses, in two ways—first, by abolishing the duties on non-Commonwealth imports of these goods into the United Kingdom market, or, secondly, by imposing duties on Commonwealth goods. These are totally different propositions. I think that one could make out a case for the first. One could make out a case for saying, "Let the United Kingdom import all foodstuffs and raw materials tariff free from all parts of the world". Even the Liberal Party conceivably would agree with that.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He will agree that there are a great many important raw materials which are already imported tariff-free from any source, such as jute and rubber.

I was hoping that the Liberal Party was in favour of free trade in foodstuffs and raw materials. That was all that I was saying.

This is not what we are asked to do. What we are asked to do is to put new tariffs on the main imports of food and on some imports of raw materials into this country. That is a totally different issue, and it has not been made clear to the country. Whether one thinks it right or not, this second proposition has the following consequences. First, it means a reverse preference against Commonwealth goods. That is what we are being asked to institute—a tax on Commonwealth goods when foreign goods of the same kind are entering the country tariff-free.

Secondly, this is something which, whatever one may think of the Six, or of the United Kingdom, is contrary to the interests of the outside world, because it means erecting new barriers to trade. The one great industrial country in the world, which at present practises some sort of free trade in food and raw materials, is asked to take a step backwards and give it up.

Thirdly, if we are to end Commonwealth preference in this way, it is plainly contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom, for the reasons which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) made plain. It must mean an increase in the price of food and in the price of certain raw materials in this country; and this is bound, in greater or lesser degree, to raise our export costs and, therefore, would have repercussions, on our balance of trade.

Fourthly, I would add this to what the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) said. He pointed out that preference went back 300 years in some respects. If we start imposing import taxes on food, we are reversing not merely the Ottawa Agreements, but the system which has been in effect for at least 100 years, since the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws when, broadly speaking, we removed import duties on food. Therefore, it is not simply a reversal of the Ottawa duty.

Whether one is in favour of doing this or not, it should be made clear that we are not just being asked to give up preferences. We are being asked to start for the first time for at least a century imposing taxes on our main food imports. This is an issue which does not simply affect the Commonwealth producing countries, but it severely affects the standard of living and trading and exporting power of this country. Anybody who does not understand that does not understand the issues which are at stake. So much for the preferences in the United Kingdom market.

I should like now to look at the other side of the coin—that is, the preferences granted to us on our exports by the Commonwealth countries. The hon. Member for Solihull (Sir M. Lindsay) grossly misrepresented the facts of the case. While wishing today to be wholly dispassionate, it always seems to me to be a little discreditable to denigrate one's own country and Commonwealth; and when one does it on the basis of plain falsehoods, I find it positively shabby.

The hon. Member said that Commonwealth trade has been declining every year. This is wholly false. It is wildly the reverse of the truth. These facts were given to me simply and plainly in answer to a Question cm 28th June by the Board of Trade and they are in HANSARD of that date at column 168. I make the comparison between 1946 and 1961 for the totals of trade.

Between 1946 and 1961, British exports to the Commonwealth increased from £302 million to £1,326 million which is a fourfold increase in exports during that period. The hon. Member for Solihull calls it a decline. In the days of Dr. Goebbels, that was almost what would have been called the "big lie"; if it is repeated often enough, one hopes that somebody will believe it, although it is totally devoid of truth.

This is outrageous. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to quote figures of percentage of British imports and percentage of British total exports is the fairest possible guide?

I am now coming to the percentages; the hon. Member should have waited a little longer. He has asked about percentages. Therefore, we will look at the percentages given in the same column of HANSARD to which I have referred. It is a pity that the hon. Member does not study these matters before making speeches. Comparing British exports to the Commonwealth as a percentage of British exports, and taking the two years 1938 and 1961—that is, over the whole period of the war and afterwards—we find according to the Board of Trade that in 1938 British exports to the Commonwealth as a percentage of our total exports were 31·6, and in 1961 they were 34·5. Of course, the hon. Member is totally ignorant of this. I realise that he was not trying to mislead the House—

I took the last four years. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says in comparing figures of 1938 and 1961 will make my figures for 1957 to 1961 less accurate.

The hon. Member is getting deeper and deeper into the mire. I do not know why he wishes to be so controversial on a Friday morning. I am coming to those figures. The story is the same in both cases as regards United Kingdom imports from the Commonwealth as a percentage of total United Kingdom imports. They increased from 34·2 in 1938 to 35·3 in 1961. Therefore, in the case both of imports and exports, Commonwealth trade was a greater proportion of our trade in 1961 than it was in 1938.

It is true that certain propagandists, with whatever motives, have tried to select a few recent years to misrepresent the facts. What has really happened, however, is that, as even the hon. Member for Solihull should know, there was a war from 1939 to 1945 and during those years Western Europe was occupied and, therefore, unable to trade with the United Kingdom. Therefore, from 1938 to 1946, strangely enough, because the Commonwealth helped us in our need, Commonwealth trade rose as a percentage of total British trade. Then, strangely enough, after 1946 Western Europe recovered and began to trade again. Therefore, if one takes the second phase only, one naturally finds in terms of percentages a slight rise in trade with Western Europe and a slight fall in trade with the Commonwealth. All that that tells us, as any child should have known, is that there was a war after 1939 and it came to an end in 1945.

The interesting point is that if we take the whole period from 1938 to 1961, we find that Commonwealth trade is a higher proportion today of our total trade than it was in 1938; and it is a notably higher proportion in terms of our exports. Therefore, what these figures show is that over the whole period there is plainly a trend for Commonwealth trade to rise, as a proportion of our total trade, and that in the years of the war and afterwards, when we were in great need of essential imports and essential food and raw materials, the Commonwealth came to our help and did all it could to supply us with these essential goods.

If one looks at the facts, therefore, one gets a rather different picture from what we have heard from some of this propaganda. I want to make only one other point. Let us also look at the facts and make a dispassionate estimate ami not indulge in all these egregious, tendentious statements about the value of Commonwealth Preference in the Commonwealth countries to British exports. What the hon. Member for Soli-full did, which is typical of this sort of propaganda, was to mention one type of export to one country-—I think that it was wood pulp, or something similar, to Australia. We have, however, had scientific examinations made by economists of the likely effects on the whole of British exports of this operation. The most dispassionate and accurate of them is that of Sir Donald MacDougall, who is now the chief economist to the National Economic Development Council, which was published a few months ago in the Rotterdam Bank Review.

Since there is not much time, I will merely give his conclusion. He points out that since our exports to the Commonwealth are 35 per cent. of our total exports, and our exports to the Six are only 14 or 15 per cent., quite a moderate preference on the large amount of Commonwealth trade is worth much more than a similar preference on a smaller amount of trade. He goes through the figures and tries to work out the net effect of abandoning Commonwealth preference and substituting the European preference instead.

His conclusion is:

"Entry into the Common Market would thus involve a preferential abolition of duties averaging 10 to 15 per cent. on about one-sixth of our present exports (those to the Six), and a loss of preferences, or potential preferences, averaging around 10 per cent. on about one-third of our present exports (those to the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.)."

I should have thought that one-third was a slight under-estimate, but let us take this figure—

"These rough figures suggest that the losses on British exports might outweigh the gains."

That is the effect of one of the few really serious attempts to analyse the situation. Such others as I have seen by economists have come to the same conclusion.

Sir Donald MacDougall goes on to say:

"Looked at as a purely commercial deal, and ignoring the indirect consequences, it is thus by no means obvious that entry into the Common Market"—

on the terms now being proposed—

"would be a good proposition for Britain. It might well tend to worsen the balance of trade."

That is Sir Donald MacDougall's conclusion. He then states:

"Adverse effects on the balance of payments could emerge quickly "—

and alter a certain amount of other argument he says:

"It is not impossible that joining would neces-site a devaluation of the pound."

This is the most careful and dispassionate economic examination that we have had of this proposition. I think that it deserves from the point of view of purely economic argument, rather more serious examination than the hon. Member has given to it. The fact is that on examination of the figures we reach this conclusion; that present preferences, whether we are in favour of them or not, because they cover such a large volume of our exports are at present distinctly valuable to us; and that, cm the evidence, any abandonment of their return for a preference in Europe may well result in a net loss of exports to us.

Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that even if we adopted the policy which the hon. Member for Solihull is urging, we would raise the price of our imports and diminish our exports on balance. That must mean, of course, a serious deterioration in our balance of payments, which we all agree is our greatest national problem, at any rate in the economic sphere.

We cannot just blindly accept a lot of "phoney" figures and arguments which suggest that, somehow, the economic advantages of this change are such that we ought to accept all sorts of serious political handicaps for the sake of the economic advantages which on examination turn out not to be advantages at all, but disadvantages.

Finally, I would add this. The hon. Member for Solihull also produced a remarkable calculation by which the Commonwealth appeared to include about 30 million people. Of course, it includes 650 million people. It also happens to include those parts of the world where the population is increasing faster because, strangely enough, people emigrate from this country, from Germany, Italy and France to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. They do not emigrate from Australia to Germany or from New Zealand to Italy. Therefore, if we look ahead not just to the next few years concerned in the calculations that I have given, but twenty, thirty or forty years ahead, there is no doubt wide areas of the Commonwealth will not only have a population over three times that of Europe, but a much more rapidly increasing population. Also, of course, that scope for development and for raising the standard of living will be far greater in those countries than it can possibly be in the older countries.

So whatever conclusions we come to on this problem, do let us look at it on the basis of the facts and with a real understanding of what has been happening, and is happening, and not on the basis of fairy tales, propaganda and misrepresentation of the whole economics of the case.

There have been moments in the debate when I thought that it might have been more appropriate if a Foreign Office spokesman had taken my place.

Thank heavens, he is not.

Perhaps some of the points raised could only be answered by that Department. That is the point that I make.

We have had an interesting debate, which has ranged extremely widely and I do not think that I can answer all the policy aspects that have been referred to. I do not at all object to the argument that has gone on. It is an argument that has to go on. I have no objection to make about that at all, but I must confine myself to certain aspects of the matter.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) that this is much better tackled upon a basis of fact. We all say that and then we ail wonder what are the facts. The figures that have been mentioned of export-imports from the Commonwealth recently are, of course, published by the Board of Trade and are in Statistical Abstract No. 81 of 1960. They show, as everyone would expect, a very substantial increase in our inward and outward trade since the war ended. That was the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we would all expect that.

They show in more recent years, from 1956 to 1960, that exports from the United Kingdom to the Commonwealth have increased, in terms of millions of pounds sterling, from £1,451 million in 1956 to £1,515 million in 1960. The increase has not been even. In one or two of those years it has actually declined. In the same period, our exports to the rest of the world—which at this point is perhaps the best way to put it— have increased from £1,835 million to £2,163 million, the rate of increase with the rest of the world having been a little faster than with the Commonwealth. There are perfectly good reasons for this which, I suggest, have nothing to do with the controversy to which I have been listening.

One of the reasons has been the depressed conditions of world commodity prices which are bound to have an influence upon those countries which primarily depend upon trade in commodities and less completely on trade in the more sophisticated type of goods. I do not think that I need give the figures of imports into the United Kingdom which are available in the Abstract. Broadly speaking, they reflect the same tendencies.

I accept the mixing up of the Common Market with Commonwealth Preferences in the course of the debate, because I agree that it is impossible to dispose of any particular subject without relating it to other subjects. This is quite inevitable. The House, I think, came to that conclusion on Wednesday. Until we know the terms of reference, the debate is likely to be academic. That is perhaps the guiding light, if I may use the phrase, for me today.

Out of date.

I do not think that the terms of reference, or the need for keep- ing ourselves clear about our terms of reference, ever can be out of date, if I may say so, with the greatest deference, to the right hon. Gentleman.

The terms of reference and the actual argument for Common Market or Com-monwealth Preferences, one against the other, cannot be clearly set out until we know the terms offered for entry into the Common Market. These negotiations are still proceeding, and I do not believe it would be wise of me to speculate how they might proceed.

Preferences are a perfectly sensible pragmatic instrument the value of which depends on the circumstances of the time. Because I believe this is so, and because our fellow members of the Commonwealth have acted in a way which supports my belief, I want to spend the rest of my time, if I may, in setting out as concisely as I can the story of Commonwealth Preferences to date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) was correct when he said that Commonwealth Preferences have been in existence for a very considerable time. They did not start at Ottawa, and I am not at all sorry to hear him say that. They were relatively unimportant for many years, and the reasons, again, anybody with any historical knowledge or interest can clearly understand. Two or three hundred years ago there were not many nations which had anything much in the way of industrial capacity. There were very few nations which could really move about the world readily, and the speed of movement was the speed of the horse and the sailing ship.

Consequently, preferences as between ourselves and the then Empire were not likely to be tremendously important because the volume of trade was quite obviously less and the circumstances did not permit a vast volume of trade. The needs were wholly different and the whole organisation and set-up was entirely different.

The big extension of Commonwealth Preferences took place after the Ottawa Conference in 1932, and the reason for it—and this is, I think, very important— was the desire of the Commonwealth countries to protect themselves against the deep existing world recession. It is not unimportant to mention that it was only after substantial negotiation at Ottawa that we in fact got the preferences. Negotiation was as necessary there, I suggest, as perhaps it is in another context at the present time.

It was negotiation.

The right hon. Gentleman says it was negotiation. I can assure him that this is negotiation, also—but perhaps we had better not go into speculation, because I know tine right hon. Gentleman does not care much for speculation.

Commodity prices at that time had fallen disastrously and there had also fallen the demand in the world for manufactures. In that sense, it is difficult to compare that period of time with this period of time. Commodity prices today, it is true, are depressed, but no one can say the same of the world demand for manufactures. The other Commonwealth countries did not then have the diversified economies which they do now have. The growth of manufacturing industry in most of them had been steady, but it had been limited. They were all desperately concerned to find outlets for their primary commodities. It was, therefore, possible to make a bargain, and this was the essence of the bilateral agreements which we made— and they were bilateral—with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, India and Southern Rhodesia.

In those days of a world depression we sought to get trade mowing again in that big area of the world over which we had the most direct influence and the biggest power to help, and the instrument chosen at that time was bilateral agreements with each of these Commonwealth countries. They had to be bilateral because the conditions internally in each of the Commonwealth countries were different. This was the reason why they had to be bilateral. Since then conditions really have improved, and I hope I make it plain that that is important to remember when it comes to negotiating and deciding with whom we Will negotiate.

Since then every one of those countries has sought, and, generally speaking, has sought successfully, to diversify the basis of its own separate industries and its own separate economy. Each of them sought and with fair success to turn itself into a multilateral trading system instead of a bilateral trading system.

It is because that process of change is taking place within the economies of each of the Commonwealth countries as well as elsewhere that we have had varying experiences with each Common-wealth country of the preferential system between them and us. This is quite inevitable. I make no complaint, of course, about this whatsoever, because it is so much part of our duty in this country to recognise the changing character of the economy of each separate Commonwealth country and to try to deal with it as pragmatically as we did deal pragmatically with the Commonwealth as a whole at Ottawa.

However, it does follow—does it not? —that as their needs change, as they become industrialised, as they seek additional markets to our own—and I think the word is "additional" rather than "different" markets—we are bound to move into a quite different set of considerations when we think in terms of Commonwealth Preference.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is impossible or difficult for this country to trade with highly industrialised countries, because in that case, presumably, we could not do much trade with France or Germany?

I am not making any such suggestion at all, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that all the facts and figures of external trade would not support me if I did attempt to make any such suggestion. The truth of the matter is, as he knows perfectly well, that it is much easier, in fact, for highly industrialised nations to trade between themselves than it is for them to trade with others.

This is undoubtedly true, and I think that we must make steady and strong efforts to secure that all the highly industrialised trading nations do have an outward look in their trading arrangements, and this, of course, is the central purpose, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has often said in the House, of the negotiation now proceeding with the Six, and I am quite sure that that objective and that purpose commands the support not only of the right horn. Gentleman but of everybody in the House. The only argument about it is whether we are using precisely the right method, whether we are doing it at precisely the right time, and so on; but I am perfectly certain that the central purpose commands the full support and respect of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be astonishing if it did not.

The history of these preferences reflects, I suggest, perfectly clearly and very consistently the economic history of the world itself. At the time they were produced they were to get world trade moving again. They were not the best possible weapon to get trade moving again, but they were the only weapon genuinely to our hands which could be used in an area over which we had influence, and they to a great extent succeeded in their purpose. We were able to produce greater freedom of trade over a wide area at a time when all other nations were desperately restricting trade by every art and device. That is the story of these preferences.

I should like to assure the House that we have not lost sight of the significance of the Commonwealth Preference system. How could we? But it is not less important to work for an expanding Britain and an expanding Commonwealth in expanding world trade. That is the context we must always bear in mind. It would be a mistake to lose sight of the great opportunities for world trade by concentrating our attention exclusively on tariffs and preferences. Most Commonwealth trade today has grown without preferences. It has grown in value over the years as the proportions of preferences and the margins of preferences have declined, though trade still benefits from preferences.

In my anxiety over exports I have taken good note of what my hon. Friend has had to say. I have had to do so. But this is all built on many other things, besides preference, which have enabled us to be the main market, the main supplier and the main source of overseas investment for almost every Commonwealth country. Contacts and associations built up over generations, and co-operation in trade and economic development, will not be easily broken. Certainly, we have memories of standing shoulder to shoulder in two world wars. There are the great bonds of language, and of customs and standards, and the basic attitudes to life. These have stood the test both of the preferential system and of the free trade period that we once had.

We do no service to the Commonwealth if we believe that all these sure and abiding links are in jeopardy because of changes in one single economic instrument, and I hope that it will not go out from this House that any particular link is the only Commonwealth link that we have. That is most certainly not true. We have deeper and more significant links than merely the preferences, important though they have most certainly been in our history.

I am most grateful that this subject has been selected for debate. More important, many other people will be grateful, because so many people are affected. Noise is one of the greatest scourges of our lives. We are deluged by it; it is in the air, and all around us. Some people suffer from it more grievously than others. I think of sick people at home or in hospital, night workers who want to sleep during the day, and sensitive people, who require quiet for their work, as well as people who live on busy roads or near large airports.

But except for the privileged and fortunate few who dwell in remote places, we all suffer from the scourge of noise. It affronts our privacy, and it destroys our comfort, our work and health. We all suffer from it, but we never do anything about it. We meekly accept it as inevitable. I suppose that some noise is inevitable, but much of it is avoidable—and much is deliberately inflicted upon us by people who have a vested financial interest in noise.

I want to read an extract from an admirable speech made by Mr. John Connell, Honorary secretary and founder of the British Noise Abatement Society, before the International Congress for Noise Abatement held at Salzburg last May. He said:

"Our first and most immediate targets must be those commercial interests seeking deliberately to sell noise to the intellectually and sensitively underprivileged. I recall the British sportscar advertisement that boasts that it gives ' a satisfying roar guaranteed to turn every head within earshot.' I recall the British Mini-car whose manufacturers boast that ' higher up the speed scale the noise is deafening.' These sort of manufacturers are morally no better than brothel-keepers."

These are strong words, but I can appreciate Mr. Connell's feelings.

But it is not about motor bicycles, motor cars, heavy lorries or aircraft that I wish to speak this morning. I wish to speak on the narrower point of the control of the level of noise on building sites. At once I must declare a personal interest. I have had a painful experience, enduring now for about seven months. But let it not be thought that this experience is the cause of my raising this subject this morning. It is not the cause; it is merely the occasion. If I describe it, I do so for two reasons— first, because it is something on which I can speak with first-hand knowledge, with personal authority, and without having to consult any other source, and, secondly, because my experience is typical of the experience which hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of people are experiencing at this moment.

There is now a great building boom in progress—the greatest in all time. It is likely to remain with us for a long time. This is another reason why the Government should regard this as an urgent problem.

I have lived for several years in a flat in Kensington, one of whose attractions was its quietness. I could relax there, think, and do my writing. At least, I could until this year. At this year's beginning the developers arrived. Just a few yards from my window they demolished buildings. They dug deep foundations through the concrete, and then began to build a block of shops and flats. During those months, day after day and even now on Sundays, sometimes for ten hours a day, we have been tortured. Pneumatic drills, a compressor, a cement mixer, and something that sounds like a monstrous saw, have been lacerating our nerves.

Many complaints have been made to the public authorities—to the police, to the town clerk, and to the medical officer of health. These people are all most sympathetic, and also powerless The police officers called at my flat to listen for themselves, and said how appalled they were. They asked how we could possibly stand it. One can stand anything, when one has to. They were quite sad because they could not do anything about it.

Appeals were made to the firm. I made a few myself. One answer that I received is most revealing. I raised the question of the cement mixer. It emits a high whining sound, not unlike the air raid sirens that we once had to listen to. But whereas the air raid sirens' noise lasted for a minute or two, that of the cement mixer goes on for hour after hour, unceasingly. I telephoned, and asked one of the directors whether it was necessary that cement should be mixed on the site, and whether it was not possible to have the cement precast and carried on to the site. He replied, "Oh, yes, of course it is possible. Of course the stuff could be carried already mixed on to the site. But it would increase the cost." As he put it, if money were no object the cement need not be mixed on the site; it could be brought there ready made.

If money were no object! The private lives of a couple of hundred honest citizens are of no object whatever. They are of no account where a little extra cash is concerned. People who think and behave like this have no social conscience whatever. I believe that they are social outcasts, or social outlaws. But, I suppose, provided that they get the extra cash, they do not mind a bit. But the Government should mind. The Government should protect us against these social outlaws.

What can the Government do? First, before coming to Governmental level, I should like to say a word about a more local level. The other day I read with great interest a report in a newspaper that a man who lives at Chingford in Essex has had his rates reduced on account of the heavy traffic that passes his door. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope that it catches on everywhere and that it is universally accepted. I suggest that the reduction in rates be according to decibels. As every school boy knows, "decibel" is the name used to describe a measure of response in an electrical communication circuit. That means that it is a measure of sound. I think that a reduction in the rates should be graded according to decibels—the louder the noise, the lower the rate.

Local authorities need not necessarily lose anything by this arrangement, because the rates of people living in quiet streets could be increased correspondingly. This would, I think, have two results. It would maintain the rates at their present level and it would also give to people who live in quiet streets a vested interest in noise abatement. They might even make demands on the Government to do something about it.

To return to Government level, what can the Government do, or what can be done by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government? I have two complaints about the Ministry, and there is no personal criticism implied here be-cause I am well aware that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend have only recently taken over their offices. First, the Ministry seems to assume that if some legislation is passed, particularly about public nuisances, that legislation is final and complete and can never be amended, improved or added to. My second complaint is that the inclination of the Ministry is always to "pass the buck" to the local authorities. Let me give two illustrations of what I mean. On Tuesday afternoon I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would introduce fresh legislation to control the level of noise on building sites. The hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, no, because under the 1960 Act the local authorities already have sufficient power to control noise." As I have already pointed out, at any rate the local authority in Kensington, where I live, does not seem to have enough power to stop that terrible nuisance, despite the numerous complaints from ratepayers.

I can give the hon. Gentleman another example of this inclination to regard all legislation as final and that local authorities have all the powers which they require to do everything which they should do. Earlier on Tuesday I asked whether the Parliamentary Secretary would compel the owners of disused quarries, sand pits and gravel pits to fence them in an adequate manner because these are a danger to the public. The hon. Gentleman said, "No, local authorities already have power under the Acts of 1954 and 1959 to see that these places are adequately fenced." He may think that local authorities have the power. But some local authorities do not think that they have, and are very dissatisfied with the powers which they possess. One local authority, the Thurrock Urban District Council, petitioned Ms Ministry two or three months ago to introduce more legislation so that these plague spots, these danger spots for children, these blots on the landscape could be hidden—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is near a "danger spot" in making an invitation for legislation his chief motif, which I am not permitted to allow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was giving another example —possibly I do not need to—of this inclination on the part of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to think that it should never introduce any further legislation.

What ought the Government to do? I make two or three suggestions to the Parliamentary Secretary and I am sure that he will do his best to comply with them. First, the public should be educated about the damage and the danger resulting from noise. The public should be told, for example, that the loss of efficiency through noise, the fatigue and ill-health directly caused by noise, is costing this country considerably more than £1,000 million a year. This figure has been arrived at from comparative studies made first in some universities in America. A typewriter firm carried out a survey of the productivity lost directly as a result of noise. It was discovered that typists and executives lost between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of their total efficiency. If we reduce that figure by 10 per cent., if we say that there is 10 per cent. less noise in this country than in America— that is something which I refuse to believe—and if we work out the number of persons in this country and say that the level of earnings is only £10 a week —although in fact it is slightly higher— the total loss to the country in a year is £1,000 million.

Why should not there be a big advertising campaign in order to educate the public about this? We have had such campaigns in relation to death on the roads and dangerous driving, and about cancer and smoking—all excellent campaigns—so why not have one on this subject? I suggest that the Government consult the Noise Abatement Society. I am not a member of that society, although having now read its literature, I think I shall become one. I understand that it is a comparatively new body which has carried out quite a lot of research and it would know how to handle such a campaign. Unfortunately, the society has no money. I think that money should be made available, either to that society, or to some other organisation, or for the Government themselves, in order that there may be an advertising campaign carried out to educate the public.

Secondly, I think that the Government should prohibit the manufacture of new machines capable of producing noise of more than 60 decibels. I consider that every instrument used on a building site should have stamped upon it the maximum decibel output, just as electrical apparatus now has the voltage and other vital information clearly indicated upon it. But in the meantime, while we are waiting for new machinery, the Government should look into the various tests which have been made to silence, so far as possible, or to reduce the noise made by existing apparatus; and they should examine the possibility of using other apparatus which, while still producing more than 60 decibels of noise, is less noisy than the horrible, primitive machines which are now in use.

Tests have been made by the chief public health inspector of Shoreditch in April of this year and again last week. Three types of machines were used on a section of reinforced concrete. One was a pneumatic road drill, the ordinary horrible thing with which we are familiar, and this was used without a silencer. The second was the same kind of drill silenced with a muffling cover, and the third was an electric road breaker. It was found that the electric road breaker was much quieter in operation even than the pneumatic drill which was muffled. More interesting still, it was discovered that over the period of forty minutes during which the three machines were in operation the electric road breaker worked three to four times faster; that is, it removed three to four times more concrete even than the pneumatic drill which is supposed to be at its most efficient when operated without a silencer.

I do not suppose we could require that present machinery should be scrapped overnight, although from what we hear about building tycoons they could well afford to do that because they are making enormous fortunes. While we are waiting for the new machinery to be used and while the Government are looking at the possibility of having pneumatic drills fitted with silencers, or encouraging the use of electric road breakers, the present machines could be placed in acoustic booths. They would easily fit around pneumatic drills, compressors, cement mixers and so on.

I think that noise should be taxed. There could be an annual rate of £1 per decibel over 60 decibels rising to £10 per decibel over 100 decibels. It is very strange for me to be advocating new techniques, indeed it is rather improper, but I assure the Government I would vote with enthusiasm for such a proposal. It would have two good results. It would impose a fine on social outlaws and prevent annoyance to people caused by noisy machinery. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider these suggestions. This is an immensely serious problem. There is an old saying:

"Cleanliness is next to godliness."

I think that quiet is next to godliness. We read in the Psalms that God is not to be found in the whirlwind—non in tempestate Deus. Many years ago I read the biography of a holy man who founded a religious order and worked in the slums of a big town in southern France. I forget whether it was Marseilles or Lyons. After his death someone asked his friends, "Do you think he was a saint? If so, will you explain why you think so?" One of his friends said, "I think he was a saint because he showed such great thought for his fellows. Whenever he entered or left a room he closed the door quietly."

It is no good looking for godliness in the Government. Ever since one of your predecessors lost his head, Mr. Speaker, we have not had saints in this place, but we can look for decency and a little protection from the Government. Millions of people are affected by this problem and they are defenceless. The Government could come to their assistance.

I speak as a builder, as an outlaw, as a money-grabbing plutocrat, but I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) that the building industry appreciates the problems which he has raised.

One of the difficulties is that if anyone wants a flat or a house for himself, that is the most important operation in the world, but, if someone else wants it, it is the greatest nuisance that can be tolerated. The hon. Member referred to the cost in this problem. It is no good building flats and houses so expensively that people cannot afford to pay the rent. One of the problems for the building industry, unlike those of other industries, is that its work is more mobile when it comes to sites adjoining those where people are living.

The hon. Member suggested that noise on a building site should be taxed. If that were done it would only ultimately add to the cost of the property and the rent which the purchaser would have to charge.

Could it not also reduce the profits of the developer?

There is always that factor to be taken into account, but developers do not make the enormous profits which the hon. Member suggested. One has only to look at the balance sheets of various building companies to see that their turnover profits are among the lowest in the country. That, as also in the case of farmers' profits, is not often appreciated. If the hon. Member looked at the balance sheets he would see the point I am making.

It is fair to put before the House some of the facts and to refer to some of the things which the industry is doing. The hon. Member suggested that their should be a machine to measure decibels. I defy him to suggest a machine which would measure the noise caused by riveting. That would be quite impracticable, but the industry has made great advances with new techniques by which welding often takes the place of riveting and is a noiseless operation. The hon. Member referred to noise caused by concrete mixers. On a number of building estates in London electric concrete mixers, which do not make the same amount of noise, are being used. There is also the introduction of plastics to the building industry, a development in which I see great potential benefits which in themselves will decrease the noise on building sites.

A number of builders appreciate the difficulties. The better ones notify adjoining owners about when operations are to take place and how long it is likely that the noise will continue. The hon. Member will appreciate that although noise may be a beastly nuisance one can tolerate it more easily if one knows that it is to be limited to a few weeks' time.

Of course, that is helpful. It would be helpful to know that a noise was to continue for only a few weeks, but it is not helpful to be told that and then to find that it goes on for months.

I readily appreciate that. I do not know the contractors of whom he spoke, nor the circumstances, but I agree that there is no greater nuisance than for a noise to be going on and not to know when it will come to an end.

The hon. Member referred to precast concrete. The development of pre-stressed concrete is a factor which needs consideration. The use of ready-mixed concrete which can be delivered all over the country also cuts down the noisy operation. The electric barrow hoist which is being introduced is another factor which can help. In a debate of this short duration it is not possible to go into the full details and to develop ideas fully, but I suggest that the building industry has to work economically.

A classic example of how this problem is dealt with is the work on the Hyde Park Corner deviation. There was the problem of noise disturbing patients in St. George's Hospital and the possible damage to the structure. The consulting engineer employed an Italian technique which allowed under-pinning to be done without any noise at all, but the increased cost, although it is unknown to me, would, I think, be rather in the tens of thousands than in thousands of pounds. One cannot expect a normal building operation to follow that example.

One of the greatest noise nuisances is when roads are cut up. Nothing annoys the general public more than to find the gas authority using pneumatic drills to make holes one week and the following week the electricity authority carrying out a similar operation. My hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate has some power in this direction, I believe. If not, I suggest that power should be taken to co-ordinate the work of such operations. Bearing in mind that we recently passed the Pipe-Lines Bill, we must remember that another authority will soon have the same object of making a hole as quickly and economically as possible.

I ask my hon. Friend to make suggestions for cutting down the number of authorities doing this kind of operation independently of each other.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has raised an important subject. I think that he was right to concentrate on industrial noise, because, athough the noisy motor car or motor cycle is bad enough, as a rule it is not as persistent as a noise going on for weeks and weeks in the same place, and, therefore, not as much of a nuisance as that to which my hon. Friend referred. As we are out of order in an Adjournment debate in proposing new legislation, we have to consider what can be done under the existing law about this matter.

My hon. Friend mentioned that it is possible for people who suffer from this nuisance to apply to have the assessment of their rates altered. If he will consider the matter, he will realise that automatically that has the effect which he wanted of causing people who live in quiet areas to pay rather more. If I have a reduction in my rate assessment because I live in a noisy area, and the borough council still has to have the same amount of money, it must raise the rate poundage. I shall be paying a little less and people whose assessments have not been altered will pay a little more. It is desirable that the right to try to have one's assessment lowered if one suffers from noise should be generally known.

It is also possible, either for individuals or for local authorities, to take legal action in the case of serious nuisance, whether from noise or from other causes. Some time ago a constituent of mine brought an action for nuisance by noise against an industry— not a building firm, but another kind of industry. He succeeded. The learned judge took the view that although the firm had gone to considerable trouble to try to reduce the noise, none the less at the end of the day the amount of noise which the firm was making was more than it was reasonable to expect the residents to endure.

That, I think, was a surprising decision, and not everybody could be certain of being successful in bringing a case of that kind, because normally I believe that it is a defence for the industry concerned to show that it has taken all reasonable steps to abate the noise

That applies only to public nuisance. The common law action taken by an ordinary individual in common law in respect of a nuisance is not affected by that, nor does it apply when a local authority decides that a nuisance is so great that it will take the case to High Court.

In that case the legal remedies which are already open are perhaps stronger than I supposed. This is something which should be known. It should be possible for people bringing legal actions of this kind if necessary to obtain legal aid. It might be a good thing if local authorities were reminded of the legal position in this respect.

But there remain those oases in which the firm can plead as a defence that it has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the noise. I think that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should consider whether there is a case for some kind of circular or bulletin of information to local authorities about the more usual types of nuisance which arise and what is known at present about what firms can do, if they choose, to reduce the nuisance. The local authority can then consider whether the firms in its neighbourhood are making use of the knowledge which exists at present in carrying on their processes without unreasonable disturbance to neighbours.

I hope, too, that the Ministry will remind their colleagues who come under the Minister for Science of the importance of research into ways of reducing noise, because it happens over every possible nuisance which there has ever been that the argument always begins by people saying that it is quite impossible to do the work without creating the nuisance. For example, it was said to be impossible to sweep chimneys clean without sending little boys up them. In the end society has to say, "Possible or not, you must not do this any more"; and then another way is found. But one must at least have same idea of where the right scientific answer lies, and it is partly the Government's responsibility to promote research of that kind.

May I mention, in that connection, a kind of noise not mentioned by my hon. Friend? I trust that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will continue to remind the other Ministries concerned of the desirability of continued research into how to deal with aircraft noise which continues, inevitably, at present, I suppose, to plague the inhabitants of a flange region of west London. Some day, I hope, we shall discover the answer to it. I hope that any influence which the Ministry has in that direction will be fully used.

I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) who raised this matter—and his doing so was certainly a valuable exercise—that it is certainly not my wish in any way to minimise the effects of the nuisance of which he complained.

I sympathise with him very much in a personal capacity, because I live more or less beside the District and Circle lines and very close to the new West London Air Terminal. No sooner had the present temporary building, with its rather complex concrete raft, been erected, involving moving the lines of the District railway, than a start was made on the permanent building.

In this case, owing to the need to avoid disrupting traffic, a great deal of work had to go on at night. But it is only fair to say—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) intervened and made the point—that in this case the developer was obviously conscious of his public responsibility, for he tried to minimise the noise and, where noise was inevitable, he had excellent public relations in explaining to neighbouring residents why it was necessary and possibly how long it would last, and this undoubtedly helped to minimise complaints and created a general feeling of better relations.

I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened, because he was able to give some indication from the building side that the industry is not entirely complacent in this matter and that progress is being made. I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock will not minimise either the problems which have to be overcome or the difficulties involved both administratively and legally. I accept from the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that there are certain difficulties of enforcement, but the basic difficulty, which I think goes to the root of the lack of complete satisfaction in the legal remedies, is the great difficulty at the moment of defining the level of acceptable noise. In a few minutes, I will take up the hon. Member for Thurrock on his decibel scale. It is a technical matter and I shall not attempt to blind him with a science which has already nearly blinded me.

As I told him in answer to a Question on Tuesday, the whole problem is currently the subject of investigation by a very high-powered Committee, set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Science, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson. We are, at any rate, doing something about it.

I am aware of that Committee. It has been sitting since April, 1960, and it recently published an interim report. Has the hon. Member any idea when it will publish its final report?

I was coming to that. It is hoped that it will publish a final report before the end of the year. I remind the House that its terms of reference are very wide. They are,

"To examine the nature, sources and effects of the problem of noise and to advise what further measures can be taken to mitigate it."

The Committee is representative of industrial, local authority, medical, legal and lay opinion and it has the advice of technical assessors from the National Physical Laboratory, the Building Research Station and a number of Government Departments, including my own.

The Committee has appointed a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Mr. L. H. A. Pilkington to study the problems of industrial noise and noise from construction and demolition sites. It has already taken a lot of evidence. Its members have not merely sat in offices. They have gone round to various building sites, including Hyde Park Corner and a lot of the building in Victoria Street. The members have held meetings in a room at the Building Research Station, Where they have been exposed to noises from typical building equipment of various types and functions. We hope that the Committee will produce its report before the end of this year.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, despite the time factor, this is an immensely wide and difficult task when it is borne in mind that the problems vary from the noise of transistor radios to the noise of jet aircraft, and there are a good many things in between which will readily spring to the minds of hon. Members.

The Committee has already produced an interim Report confined to the question of noise from motor vehicles. This Report was published this month as a White Paper, Cmnd. 1780. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have had an opportunity of looking at it. Although this is a special aspect, I think that there are matters within this Report which are of more general interest and application, particularly with regard to the question of measurement of noise and a definition of the acceptable datum level from which one can start to say that this or that is a nuisance or not a nuisance.

I want to quote from two short paragraphs which put the problem remarkably well in non-technical language. Paragraphs 27 and 28, under the section headed, "The Choice of Noise Levels ", read as follows:

"Of these factors "—

the Report previously lists certain factors—

"perhaps the most debatable is—what level of noise is 'acceptable'? It would be very unlikely that an 'acceptable' motor car would be as quiet as an ' acceptable' sewing machine, for example; and though much work has been done in recent years on the psychological aspects of noise, we were unaware of any method of fixing, a priori, any levels of vehicle noise which could be called 'acceptable'.

A further complication was the uncertainty of correlation between subjective judgments of loudness or annoyance and the readings given by any available type of noise-measuring instrument."

If the hon. Member will go on from Section IV, "The Choice of Noise Levels", and look at Appendix V, which is headed "The Measurement of Noise", again he will get some idea at any rate of the difficulties involved, even if he is not much more enlightened as to the method by which they are to be tackled than I was.

It is when one comes to follow up this problem in Appendix V that one undoubtedly gets very confused in a world of decibels, phons and sones, especially when one is told that the measurement in sones is two to the power of the measurement in phons minus forty and divided by ten; and that measurement in phons is the sound pressure level in decibels by reference to an arbitrary level. Whether that will help the hon. Gentleman more than it helped me I do not know. I am sure that he will get very much more value from trying to read it himself than from any attempt that I can make to help him.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a copy of this Command Paper.

I want to add a few words of a less technical nature on the question of the measurement of noise. One of the difficulties is that it is a subjective phenomenon and it is very difficult indeed to assess the effects not only on different individuals but of different types of sound which may well measure the same loudness. For instance, there is all the difference in the world between the noise of a dripping tap, the cat on the roof-tap tiles, and the baby next door, but they all measure something similar in terms of decibels. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to go into the more elementary matters of measurement, because he said that every schoolboy knows about these things. If that is so, they have advanced a good deal since my day.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that sound pressure levels, as I am advised, of 30 decibels above the reference would be found in quiet country conditions and of 70 decibels in normal conversation. Therefore, on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's tax idea he would already during this debate have incurred a considerable tax liability. We must bear in mind when thinking of these things that the public, however much it may dislike noise, is not likely to accept very lightly a tax which would interfere with the ordinary day-to-day activities of life. I am advised that in noise control an improvement of about three decibels is just about detectable. It is not until a diminution of 10 to 15 decibels takes place that anything very striking to the ordinary human ear is achieved.

As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a great difference in the pitch or frequency of noises. He himself made the point that the high-pitched whine of the instrument to which he referred was much more irritating than some other noises. This is true, but the question of pitch does not come out when sheer loudness is measured in the decibel scale to which he referred.

Despite all these difficulties, it is clear that the first hurdle has been got over in that the Committee has been able to recommend some definite tolerable noise levels as well as methods of assessing noise in respect of motor vehicles. I have very little doubt that it will also be able to do this in respect of the noises to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Once we can get this information, once we get some sort of standard, obviously the whole question of legal enforcement becomes very much easier, because local authorities will have a guide as to the standard of noise in which they are likely to get a favourable decision in the courts, and the courts will have a guide which will enable them to build up a body of precedent, which gives that degree of certainty to the law which is so essential.

I cannot say that I am greatly impressed with the arguments for taxing noise, owing to the very considerable difficulties and the very considerable differences in the tones of noise, even though they might measure the same in loudness. I certainly would not envy the task of the Inland Revenue officials in an attempt to make the assessment or to collect tax.

With regard to the legal problems, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) mentioned, there is a procedure under the Public Health Act where action can be taken on the ground that noise constitutes a public nuisance. The procedure is that a local authority can take enforcement proceedings in a magistrate's court where an order can be made for the abatement of the nuisance, subject to a fine and a continuing daily penalty.

As I pointed out to the hon. Member, if the local authority is satisfied that it is a particularly severe case of nuisance which justifies it going to the High Court, it can take the case there. I am advised that in the High Court the defence that the operators have taken the best possible precaution is not available. The hon. Gentleman said that he has a constituent who was successful in that type of action. The same applies—that is, there is no legal defence of this nature— in the ordinary common law action for nuisance.

I fully appreciate that these legal remedies can be rather cold comfort, because they are expensive, and, especially where local authorities are not prepared to intervene, the ordinary private individual hesitates to incur the costs and the anxiety of an action. Once we have some sort of test, I think that this will automatically improve the effectiveness of these legal remedies.

The hon. Member for Fulham suggested that we should try to do something more in the publicity sphere by issuing a bulletin of information on the types of noise, legal aspects and the like. I think that he would agree that it would be sensible to consider this suggestion in the light of the recommendations of the Wilson Committee when we receive them, because we could very easily publish something which proved to be misleading in the light of its recommendations. In the meantime, there is absolutely no doubt that the practice between one firm of developers and another varies enormously. As I have said, the particular firm which is constructing London Airport has developed a good public relations set-up, but there is no doubt a great deal of room for improvement in other companies.

The hon. Gentleman accused us of being very loath to legislate. It is certainly my experience that the inhibition against legislation does not normally lie within Government Departments themselves. It is largely a question of the time of this House. I think that there are very few Government Departments which have not got a very long list of Measures which they would like to see put upon the Statute Book, and the hon. Gentleman knows that this is the limiting factor. Nevertheless, in a democracy, public opinion in itself will in time force a higher priority for this matter than, perhaps, has hitherto been the case, or otherwise would be the case.

In that sense, I think that the hon. Gentleman has done a very useful job in bringing home to offending developers, whom I hope and believe to be a minority, the fact that legislation, when we have the knowledge of the Wilson Report, will be much more practicable, and could very easily interfere with their practices. On the basis that the people who offend the most are probably the people who will be most inconvenienced if legislation comes about, I think they will be well advised to bear this in mind and to try to adopt a rather more public-spirited attitude to neighbouring residents.

I would end by underlining what both hon. Gentlemen have said about the question of rates. There is no doubt that noise over a long period must have an effect on the lettable value of a house, and therefore, on its rateable value. In my experience, during the building of London Airport, the officers of the Inland Revenue have been by no means unreasonable or unsympathetic, and that, perhaps, will be some small consolation to the hon. Member in the pre- sent difficulties which he faces. I assure him that the recommendations of the Wilson Report will be studied speedily and carefully in the Department. This is something to which we attach a great deal of importance, as I know my noble Friend the Minister for Science also does.

In March of this year, Her Majesty's Government applied to open negotiations with a view to joining the European Atomic Energy Community, which, for the purpose of this debate, I suggest we should refer to as Euratom. The object of the debate which I am initiating is to discover, first, on what basis they intend to negotiate that treaty, and, secondly, what it will mean in practice for the British nuclear industry, both in the public and private sectors.

I assume that if the Treaty of Rome is signed by the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government intend to sign the Euratom Treaty. I say that for the purposes of my argument today, but I should like to receive certain assurances before the negotiations begin. Several complex questions arise, and I am glad to see here the Undear-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is to reply, as well as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science.

I should like to refer to some of the general aims of that treaty, the first of which is to establish a nuclear industry in Europe. I cannot refer to them all, but will refer to those con-cerning the points I want to make. They are, first, to develop nuclear research and the dissemination of technical knowledge, to facilitate investment in the Six, to assure a regular supply of ores and nuclear fuels to all users within the Community. This is very important. Secondly, to guarantee by appropriate measures of control that nuclear materials are not diverted for purposes other than those for which they are intended. Thirdly, to establish with other countries any contacts likely to promote progress in the peaceful uses of atomic energy.

In this last case, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has had collaboration with Euratom in many fields, and this is instanced especially by the Dragon high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor project and the joint programme on the Norwegian boiling water reactor at Halden. There is also the United Kingdom Euratom Joint Working Group. That is what the United Kingdom authority has been doing, and so far it has opposed, until very recently, joining Euratom, because the interchange of information was sufficient for its purpose. Now, however, I think we are approaching a different phase, and, therefore, we should examine how Euratom is working.

Europe, after the signing of the Euratom Treaty, discovered that it was not, after all, entering a long period of critical power shortages, and the great enthusiasm for nuclear power of those days began to wane. The United Kingdom has suffered similar miscalculations on fuel supplies, and suffered much more seriously, in view of its large nuclear power station programme, which has had to be drastically reduced. No such nuclear power station programme exists in Europe.

None the less, Europe in general seems to agree that nuclear power may be just as important in 1970 as it was thought it was in 1957, and I thank that we, generally, hold that view here. For that reason, Euratom has been mainly concerned with nuclear research and development rather than with a commercial power station programme. It is essentially a scientific organisation, and, since the departure of its former president, M. Hirsch, is run much more by scientists than it is by politicians. M. Hirsch is a Frenchman, and it was very much under French influence.

In February, the Economist published an article which my hon. Friend may have studied. It claimed that this position which Euratom has got itself into was due, first, to the attitude of France, which has always wanted to go her own way, especially since she decided to make nuclear weapons, and, secondly, and perhaps most important, the existence of plentiful supplies of uranium. This is of great importance to the United Kingdom, and I shall seek to show how it would affect the United Kingdom if we were to sign the Euratom Treaty.

One of the principal functions of Euratom in the field of nuclear research is the placing of contracts with private industry, and this appears to be far more extensive than anything we see in this country. The Euratom Commission has a number of research centres of its own, but it has a staff of only 1,977 people. By April, 1962, it is said that 240 research and development contracts had been placed with public or private organisations in the member countries of the Six. These contracts cover numerous different projects, such as radio-isotopes, thermo-nuclear fusion and new types of reactor.

I have found it impossible to discover how many contracts have been granted in a similar period by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may be able to tell me but, having some knowledge of this subject, I realise that civil and military research in the nuclear field in the United Kingdom are very difficult to separate, and he may find difficulty in answering me. The information is relevant when we come to the structure of the two organisations with which we are dealing—Euratom, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom set-up, on the other. Also, in this country we have the largest nuclear power station programme in the world—as distinct, of course, from nuclear research.

It is my obligation to the House to disclose a financial interest in a firm engaged in nuclear power station construction. Our industry depends almost entirely on the scientific information we receive from the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Authority's control of that information is necessarily very tight. On the other hand, the atomic energy commissions in the member States of the Six rely much more heavily on private industry than do we. Therefore, there are certain distinctions which I suggest the Government should bear in mind when considering how they should negotiate in the best interests of the Atomic Energy Authority, with its dustry, with its consideraible "know-how."

I shall not dwell on the aspects of private industry, because I mentioned those in our debate on science and industry on 12th July, When I was told by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Education, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that if the United Kingdom joined Euratom it would be open to any undertaking to compete for the supply of equipment and services to the Euratom Commission or its projects. That does not get us very far, unless we know on what basis those negotiations will proceed.

If we take our own nuclear ship propulsion programme, for which a number of British firms were asked to tender, we find that Euratom is financing two design studies, in Germany and Italy, into small nuclear-powered ships. If we take research and development in the nuclear chemical field, we have, so far, not joined the organisation known as Eurochemic, because we say, probably quite rightly, that we have our own processing plant at Windscale, under the Atomic Energy Authority's control, and do very little through private industry.

I therefore seek an assurance from the Foreign Office, which will have to negotiate this treaty, that when the Lord Privy Seal negotiates he will see that these matters are seriously considered. A Board of Trade Committee is at present discussing the points about private industry, but unless this matter is looked into I do not think that private industry will have a very good chance of being competitive in Europe.

My main point is the effect of the Treaty on what might be called the State's interest in atomic energy—the position of our Atomic Energy Authority. It may well be right to say that the Euratom Commission will give a good deal of work on the research side to the Atomic Energy Authority, if we sign the Treaty. Personally, I would welcome that, because I have some knowledge of its staffing problems, and I think that our skill and experience could contribute enormously to a European programme, and by that means our manufacturing industry would eventually benefit—perhaps in the 'seventies—by being able to get into the nuclear business in Europe

To discuss this rather difficult point, one must refer to the Lord Privy Seal's White Paper, which hon. Members may have seen, in which he gives the text of his statement to Euratom on 3rd July. My right hon. Friend then said three very important things. He said that we accepted the substantive provisions of the treaty as it stood. He said that we would have to fit in to the research and development programme of Euratom adopted from 1963 to 1967. He said that we assumed that the Community is not, and will not be, involved in the military uses of atomic energy, and that we would not be required to disclose classified defence information to Euratom.

I am sure that the House will not take exception to any of those statements, but what, in fact, are we to disclose to Euratom on the civil side? That is really the purpose of this debate. How will we harmonise our research and development programme with Euratom? Our knowledge in many fields of atomic energy is far more advanced than Euratom's. The Atomic Energy Authority, at Harwell and Ris-ley, and at many other establishments, has made enormous advances as a result of our need for a nuclear power station programme, and I am not sure that some of the critics of Euratom are not right in saying that Euratom's technical advances have not yet been very impressive.

Can we afford to give away all this information without some contribution from Euratom? I ask because it is certain that it will exact a financial contribution from us to the Euratom Commission, if we sign, in the same way that the other members of the Six contribute. Will Euratom give us sufficient research business to get that money back? Is there any intention that Euratom should contribute to some of our research projects in this country? I ask Her Majesty's Government to strike a fair bargain here, because we really are the leaders in atomic research, and are entitled to fair terms. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal says that he accepts the substantive provisions of the treaty as it stands, I accept it, as long as those terms, or something like them, are negotiated.

The Lord Privy Seal refers in paragraph 25 of his White Paper to uranium supplies, and this is very important, indeed, for the Atomic Energy Authority. It is said that at the present time the Authority has sufficient stocks in hand for many years; that, in fact, there is a surplus, owing to the cutting down of our atomic power station programme— because we were preparing for a very much larger programme in 1957. As a result, it is probably correct to say that some of the Authority's production facilities are under-employed. I am very much concerned with this problem, as I have said, from a constituency point of view.

Can that surplus uranium be sold to Europe? At present, the price that the Atomic Energy Authority is asking is much too high to enable it to sell the surplus in Europe, and I suggest that the Treasury and the Authority should work out some pricing policy before we actually enter into negotiations with Euratom. They might consider footling, as the Economist suggests, some separate atomic trading company. I do not know whether or not that would be practicable, but I hope that they will look very seriously at the position.

If we join Euraton, we shall increase the efficiency of the nuclear industry in Europe, and when nuclear power be-comes competitive there will be great gains for us. In any event, this decision will profoundly effect the course of nuclear research, and I therefore ask my hon. Friend to draw the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to what I have said.

It is a pity that so important a subject should be left for debate till this day of the Session—the day of the Summer Adjournment. Whether or not the negotiations at present being conducted in Brussels by the Lord Privy Seal come to fruition—or whether we will have to find an alternative—we would still have to consider whether the existence of Euratom necessitates any change in our nuclear energy policy.

I think that the Lord Privy Seal was perfectly right on the question of safeguards when we made our decision to apply for membership. Despite the safeguards which are being sought on defence, if one reads the Euratom Treaty one finds that a considerable number of safeguards already exist. Chapter 2, Section 1, Articles 12 and 13, deal with the dissemination of information while the provisions of Section 3 deal with security. In that Section one sees, in Article 24 (3), that the provisions covering the dissemination of information in general specifically safeguard all matters regarding classified information.

Classified information, of course, is specifically stated under an earlier paragraph of Article 24. Therefore, on defence, there is no automatic obligation by which our membership of Euratom would oblige us to share all our atomic defence secrets with the other members. There is, however, one important distinction which must be made. This is set out clearly in paragraph 56 of the Gibb-Zuckerman Report on the Management and Control of Research and Development. I can best explain this matter by quoting the paragraph.

It states:

"The authority's"—

that is, the British Atomic Energy Authority's—

"powers in the field of atomic energy are comprehensive, and cover the production, use, and all forms of research into, atomic energy and radioactive substances and the disposal of radioactive waste. Its major tasks are to produce fissile material for the defence programme;"—

that goes at the top of the list, and the paragraph continues:

"to conduct basic and applied research and development work in its own establishments for the nuclear power programme; and to manufacture fuel elements for its own nuclear reactors and for those of the electricity generating authorities".

The paragraph concludes:

"On the defence side the A.E.A. develops and produces atomic weapons or components by agreement with and on behalf of the Ministry of Aviation."

This means that the Atomic Energy Authority is deeply concerned with defence matters, whereas Euratom is not.

It seems to me that this is one of the troubles which, sooner or later, will have to be considered. If we go into Euratom and if we wish to ensure that our Atomic Energy Authority, from the civil point of view, can co-operate to the fullest possible extent, what will happen to that part of its work which is concerned with defence? It would be a great pity if the work of Britain's Atomic Energy Authority had to be split in two, with the work on defence having to be done in secret, and so causing any exchange of civil information the Authority had with Euratom to be on a superficial basis.

I hope that the Government have seriously considered this matter. I am sure that we wish to keep sufficiently up to date on the defence front with America in atomic and nuclear energy. However, we may find it difficult to do that and, at the same time, to keep our Atomic Energy Authority—which is at present responsible for maintaining that liaison at an adequate state of efficiency —maintaining good relations with Euratom on the civil front. This is an immense problem and I am not expecting a fully studied reply to it today. I hope, however, that the Minister will give some assurance that the matter has been thought about and that, if it has not, it will be.

I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said about the basis on which we are to negotiate and also his remarks about what we shall be prepared to give away and what we shall require to keep secret. I notice that Sir Christopher Hiniton, in a recent study of nuclear power—and he is, of course, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board—said, when referring to commercial development:

"In order to maintain a satisfactory position, what is necessary is not that a country should make every invention in a field of technological development but that, in that field, its general scientific and technological development should be at least abreast of that in every other nation."

He went on:

"Whether the best channels for such commercial negotiations are the semi-government organisations which are charged with the responsibility for atomic energy in most countries or whether negotiations might not better be done between engineering firms who are used to negotiating in such fields is a matter to which thought must ultimately be given."

It would be nice to know what the Minister for Science feels about that. My view is that, as in practically every other field in which the Government is now somewhat involved, a partnership is necessary and that it is essential that Government and industry should work side by side. I hope that we shall maintain that position in our negotiations with Euratom and that we shall not, should Euratom be so disposed later— and I am not suggesting that it is at this stage—prefer that all those sorts of developments and negotiations should go on only through the offices of the various bodies directly controlled by Euratom. If that were done we might find ourselves unnecessarily hampering our own civil use of nuclear energy, and that would be a pity.

I feel that the chairman of our Atomic Energy Authority is already fully aware of the need to co-operate internationally. To prove this one has only to read the Eighth Annual Report of the Authority, published on 2nd July this year. This shows, under a great number of headings, how international relations are carried on. We have the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, Euratom itself, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, the Central Treaty Organisation of C.E.N.T.O. and a great deal of other co-operation with other international organisations between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries, the United States with their American Atomic Energy Commission, and with the U.S.S.R. It is interesting to see that we had an interchange with the U.S.S.R. in May of 1961.

This co-operation also exists with Japan, France, Sweden, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Brazil, and many people from overseas have visited the Atomic Energy Authority's establishments in this country. It is, therefore, necessary that we should be given some assurance that our joining Euratom will materially improve the international co-operation that is already going on.

It might be said that there is just as big a danger in our approach to Euratom as there is to our joining the Common Market. Some have painted the picture to indicate that unless we go in nothing will happen. That is a totally false picture. To suggest that if we do not join certain bodies there will not be any co-operation is creating a false impression, for there is a wealth of co-operation of various sorts, technical and otherwise, going on all the time. It is very unlikely, in the nuclear field, that we shall get very much in return for joining Euratom from the European countries, certainly not civilly.

There is quite a possibility that they will benefit a great deal. That, in my mind, should not necessarily rule the whole thing out, for it might be a good reason for our joining. I am all for our playing a full part in international co-operation, whether it be in Europe or anywhere else. If we have something to contribute which will be for the benefit of mankind, let us do it. As I assess the position at the moment, the Europeans are going to gain far more from us than we shall gain from them by our joining Euratom. I hope that we shall make that clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said.

We should not go cap in hand and say, "Please let us in". We should say, "Because we may consider negotiating with you an agreement on the economic front, leading later possibly to political co-operation, we think it is a good idea at the same time that we should contribute what we have to offer to you in the hope that you will be able to offer us something in return in the field of nuclear energy". That is the line of approach that I would take in this matter, and I believe such an approach to be perfectly honourable and one which would meet with considerable acceptance in this House.

When it comes to sorting out how the association with Euratom would work, there are some big problems for us to solve. One of them will be whether we are to make over, as it were, to Euratom some of our stocks of uranium, whether we are to have not a big "white sale" but a big "black sale" of uranium at out prices, because we bought more than we required ourselves, and whether we are to put it into the common pool of Euratom and perhaps save ourselves a little subscription until it is all disposed of.

Perhaps that is one way of approaching the matter, but certainly we have far more uranium than we need for a considerable time to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, it will be extremely difficult to dispose of that without some loss to the public purse. I hope that in this House we shall not make the position of the Atomic Energy Authority too difficult through our Committees on Public Accounts and Estimates, so that the Authority does not have to retain stocks which it does not need even if it has to dispose of those stocks at slightly below cost.

Then there is the question of what relationship there will be as between Euratom and our establishments that we still keep under the control of the Atomic Energy Authority. Are we to have representatives of Euratom stationed in every Atomic Energy Authority plant in Britain or not? Do we conceive that if we were to agree to that, we must at least have similar rights in all the other countries? I should have thought that this was definitely a case for a fair sharing of obligations. We must not be the only people to accept the idea of having representatives from countries which may well prove to be our competitors in the long term, if not in the short term. Therefore, we have considerable problems and they will sooner or later give rise to problems of employment, involving such matters as who has the right to work, what should be the scale of salaries, and so on. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will probably say in his reply, just as the negotiations over the Common Market are proving long drawn out, so the negotiations over Euratom to get all the details tied up will take a considerable time. I should prefer to see them take a longer rather than a shorter time, because I am certain that this is a very intricate matter.

I gave a quotation from Sir Christopher Hinton just now, and I should like to make a further quotation from him:

"One sees, therefore, that in each and every country the initial development of reactors has been based on considerations which are logical and well-founded in that country. Philosophy in adolescence is likely to be based on the experience and influence of childhood years. The technique of reactor design is still only adolescent and it is natural that we should all be subject still to the influences to which we were subjected in our early days of reactor design. Each of us still thinks that our own philosophy is right and that the line of development to which it leads will ultimately prove to be best for our own problems. Only history will prove which or how many of us are right."

Here there is a very real danger of going too fast in pooling everything and agreeing to do what everybody else wishes us to do. The field is wide open. We are in a pioneering stage. It would be a great pity if our application to join Euratom were to result in a stultification of experiment, in a restriction of enterprise the end of which cannot possibly be foreseen. If this country's history means anything at all, it means that we shall have a part to play in the foreseeable future, quite as great as, if not greater than, anything we have done in the past industrially or scientifically.

For that reason I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to assure me and the House that in approaching this Euratom problem we are very conscious indeed and will make very clear to the other countries in Euratom that we are aware of the part that Britain has played, is playing and we know can continue to play provided we ensure that, whatever association we join in, Euratom is sufficiently free to allow real enterprise to operate.

I welcome the opportunity to say something about our membership of the European Atomic Energy Community and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on having raised this matter. Indeed, I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for their contributions to this debate. I can assure them that everything they have said will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science for being here, because he has been a great sustaining force to me not only in the preparation for this debate but also during the course of the debate over the last half an hour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said that he assumed that if we were to join the European Economic Community we would join Euratom. I think that is a fair assumption. We have always recognised that the three existing Communities form part of a single whole and that they are each in their own fields components of the movement towards closer European unity. It therefore follows that if we join the European Economic Community it is both logical and right that we should join the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom as well.

Our prospective membership of Euratom must, therefore, be considered against the broad political background of our decision to apply for membership of all three Communities. The political factors which led Her Majesty's Government to take this step have been explained to the House and discussed by right hon. and hon Members on many occasions, including our debate on 1st August. I know that the House would not wish me to deal with the political aspects again, but I should like my hon. Friends to bear them in mind in considering the commercial and technical aspects of the Euratom Treaty.

The statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, which has already been referred to, at his meeting with Ministers of member States of Euratom at Brussels on 3rd July marked the formal opening of the Euratom negotiations. While the negotiations for OUT entry into Euratom, taken as a whole, are unlikely to be as complicated as the European Economic Community negotiations, they do nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said in the White Paper, involve at least three points which are of major importance to us.

The first concerns co-operation in atomic energy matters between the members of an enlarged European Atomic Energy Community and other West European countries. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely referred to the importance of international co-operation. We believe that arrangements should be made to enable those of our partners in the European Nuclear Energy Agency who do not make separate arrangements with Euratom to continue to co-operate with the enlarged Community.

As the House knows, the E.N.E.A. was set up within the framework of the O.E.E.C. in order to promote co-operation among all Western European countries in nuclear matters. It has done much useful work. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon referred to the Dragon, an example of co-operation in the E.N.E.A. If we and others join Euratom, the existing arrangements, of course, would have to be reviewed. I am sure that everyone will agree that ways must be found of ensuring that the wider European effort in this work of great importance to all countries continues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely referred specifically to that.

The second point is that we shall have to discuss with the Six the procedure to be followed in order that Euratom's five-year programme of research and development is reviewed in the light of the new circumstances which would be created by our accession, The third point is that we should have to make sure that the Euratom Treaty would be applied to the United Kingdom in such a way that our nuclear defence programme remained outside the ambit of Euratom—another matter spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely.

The United Kingdom has been deeply involved in the development of nuclear energy. We have the largest nuclear power programme in the world, which has been under way since 1955. Its operation has given us much experience in the field covered by Euratom—that is, the peaceful development of nuclear energy. This experience should enable us to make a major contribution to Euratom. On the other hand, the benefits will not be all one way. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out in his original statement, there are so many ways along which atomic energy can be profitably developed and so many problems which need to be solved that no one country can hope to pursue them all successfully. Progress will be surer and more speedy if we co-ordinate and combine all our efforts. The great nuclear tradition in Europe is still very much alive. It is out view that, if we join Euratom, we shall benefit from it.

I come now to some of the matters which have been raised. As my hon. Friends will appreciate, it is extremely difficult to answer without preparation many of the points which they have raised. I assure them that we shall consider carefully what has been said, and, if I do not deal with all the points now, either I or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science will reply to them later. My hon. Friends will understand that, in replying to some of these points, I cannot go into detail on matters which might be prejudicial to our negotiating position. I must make clear that my remarks today are based upon our own interpretation of the Euratom Treaty, During the negotiations, which we hope will begin in October, we shall have to ask the Six whether our interpretation of certain parts of the treaty is correct.

The treaty was constructed, after much discussion, as the best framework which the member States could devise for co-operation in the development of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This framework should not need much alteration to accommodate the United Kingdom. Indeed, the only amendments to the treaty itself which we think we shall have to suggest are those which are the necessary consequence of the accession of a new member, for example, in the voting provisions. Any other arrangements which may be needed on our accession could, we think, be dealt with by protocols or other forms of understanding.

It follows that we do not think that the treaty needs to be changed to accommodate the interest of our nuclear industry. I am sure that our industry, with its extensive experience of the development of the British nuclear programme, can oompete favourably with its counterparts in the Community countries without the need for special arrangements.

The Euratom Treaty imposes certain obligations and limitations on its signatories. Certain of these will affect the British nuclear industry, and it may be helpful if I try to explain what we think their impact will be.

As we see it, the Euratom Treaty does not give the Euratom Commission power to impose commercial decisions on enterprises in member States; nor does the treaty require that all the results of research in member States will automatically be pooled. The powers given to the Euratom Commission are designed to achieve four main objectives in a way consistent with the treaty: first, co-ordination of nuclear programmes and activities; second, encouragement of the dissemination of information; third, equal access for all users to supplies of nuclear materials; fourth, the maintenance of a security control.

The first of these objectives—coordination of nuclear programmes and activities—is secured by three sets of provisions. The Euratom Commission may ask enterprises in member States, both public and private, to submit details of their research programmes. Enterprises undertaking major new investment projects in the nuclear field are required to give to the Commission advance notice. The Commission may obtain details of agreements made after the treaty came into force toy persons or enterprises in member States with a third country, an international organisation or a national of a third country. It may discuss a research programme or an investment project with the enterprise undertaking it.

The Commission, with its experience, will be able to make valuable comments, and the enterprises may often wish to be guided by them. But, in the last resort, the Commission cannot insist upon changes if an enterprise decides to stick to its ideas. On the other hand, if the Commission thinks that the provisions of an international agreement are incompatible with the treaty, it may refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a ailing, but the decision rests with the Court and not with the Commission.

The provisions of the treaty about the dissemination of information envisage that this will normally be achieved by voluntary co-operation between the Commission and enterprises working in nuclear energy. In extreme cases, where voluntary co-operation fails, the Commission may order the granting of a compulsory licence for the use of nuclear patents. The Commission's decision can be challenged by the patent holder, and the matter is then decided, at the patent owner's choice, either by a specially constituted international arbitration committee or by the competent authorities of the patent owner's State. In the latter case, the Commission may appeal against an unfavourable decision to the Court of Justice.

I understand that the Commission is chary of using these compulsory powers. In fact, I have not heard of any such case. Of course, if a compulsory licence is granted, the patent holder is entitled to compensation. Normally, this will be agreed between him and the licensee, and, if they cannot reach agreement, the amount of compensation will be settled, again at the patent owner's choice, either by the competent authorities in his State or by the international arbitration committee.

The treaty contains extensive provisions to ensure equal access to supplies of nuclear materials by all enterprises in member States. A supply agency has been set up for this purpose. When these provisions were drafted, it was thought that there would be a scarcity of nuclear material. As both my hon. Friends have said, there is now a surplus of materials like uranium, and, as far as we can see, this will continue for many years. Because of this surplus, the Euratom Commission and the supply agency made arrangements in 1960 under which the most important of the provisions dealing with supplies are put into force by a simplified procedure which leaves it to the parties concerned to negotiate contracts for ores and source materials, subject only to the formal approval of the supply agency Moreover, we understand that in practice the supply agency is operating many of the other provisions flexibly.

Finally, there are the security control provisions. These are designed to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted from the purpose for which they were stated to be required. The main importance of these provisions is that they constitute a safeguard against the unauthorised diversion of nuclear material to military uses. Enterprises working in the civil nuclear field will have to maintain certain operating records and to grant full access to Euratom inspectors. These safeguards are inevitably, and desirably, a feature of a multilateral agreement like the Euratom Treaty which involves close international co-operation in the development of nuclear energy.

Although our proposed accession to Euratom would impose certain obligations on the British nuclear industry, these should not, in our view, in practice prove very onerous. Moreover, these obligations must be weighed against the benefits. Broadly speaking, our accession should enable our industry to play a full part in the nuclear development of Europe. Crystal-gazing on this subject is perhaps less within my province than that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, but it seems to me that in the long term there is every reason why developments in the field of nuclear energy should at least keep pace with the developments in other sectors in Europe's economy. Nuclear energy is, after all, a new technology with tremendous potentialities. While, like all technological developments, its exploitation may have its ups and downs, the pace of scientific research in the twentieth century has been such as to encourage the hope that there will be many new and momentous discoveries in the field of nuclear energy.

United Kingdom enterprises, including the Atomic Energy Authority, the Electricity Generating Boards and private firms will be entitled to information obtained from the Euratom Commission's own research programme and from programmes in which the Euratorn Commission shares. They will also be able to exchange technical information on a commercial basis and on much the same lines as at present, although the scale of the exchanges should increase.

Membership of Euratom will mean that British firms will be able to sell nuclear equipment without the handicap of the common external tariff which will face third countries. Moreover, they will be able to compete for Euratom research contracts and for orders for equipment for Euratom research centres. Euratom's research programme is a very large one. For the five years 1963–67, 425 million dollars have been allocated to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon asked a question about A.E.A. research contracts. I do not know whether I have sufficient information to give a full answer to this question, but perhaps I can give him such information as I have. I am informed that the Euratom Commission announced in May that in the first four and a half years of its life Euratom concluded 250 research contracts involving a total outlay of 156 million dollars. Forty of these contracts, including some of 'the largest, have been awarded to national atomic energy organisations. Another batch has gone to universities and public and private research institutes. The remainder have been awarded to industrial firms.

The A.E.A. has a much larger research establishment of its own than the Euratom Commission. Nevertheless, the atomic energy estimates for 1962–63 provide for an expenditure of nearly £4·9 million on research contracts; £3·5 million, or nearly 10 million dollars, is being spent with private firms. This expenditure in one year alone compares quite favourably with Euratom's expenditure over the past five years.

I understand that arrangements are being made to ensure adequate consultation with industry during the Euratom negotiations, and that the Board of Trade is already in touch with trade associations and firms concerned.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon referred to Euroehemic. As my hon. Friend knows, this is not a Euratom undertaking but was set up under the auspices of E.N.E.A. We did not join when it was set up in 1960 because we felt that the balance of advantage lay against our doing so. This was primarily because we already had atomic chemical processing plant capacity here and it seemed pointless to duplicate it. But we shall have to review our position if we join Euratom. I do not know what the outcome of this review is likely to be, but we will certainly keep in mind the advantages to British industry of being able to compete for Eurochemic orders for equipment.

This short debate has been useful. I hope that my modest contribution to it has made it clear that, in addition to the major political advantages of our membership of all three Communities, Euratom would provide a framework in which we and the other members would share our common experience, skill and resources to exploit a significant and comparatively new field of science. I could not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon when he said that we should not gain much advantage from joining. I feel that our industry, scientists and the country as a whole stand to gain from the major advances which should follow from this co-operative European effort.

I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the question of admission into teacher training colleges for debate today. It is one which affects many thousands of young men and women, and I am afraid that some of them who have not yet been admitted to college but who wish to go will be in a great state of uncertainty unless we have a more satisfactory answer from the Ministry of Education than we have had in the past.

First, nothing that I say this afternoon will in any way reflect on the efficiency and humanity of the clearing house, which has performed a most difficult job with the greatest tact and efficiency. The criticisms which I shall direct at the arrangements which have been made must fall on the Parliamentary Secretary and on the Minister for not making adequate arrangements for the number of students requiring admission.

Secondly, the training college staffs and the principals have made great efforts, by overcrowding and adapting their arrangements, to cope with the very large number of students with whom they are being asked to cope. Nothing that I say today will be in any way critical of their efforts. Such badgering as I shall do about the admission of training college students is unfair in a way to the training colleges, since they are being asked to do almost the impossible, and I shall continue to ask them to do that until the Ministry of Education makes greater efforts to support them and gives better answers than it has up to now.

I want to tackle two subjects. The first is the number of students who seek to become teachers and to go to training colleges in September who so far have not been accepted for admission. The second is the curriculum which will be provided in the training colleges, particularly in relation to the adequate training of mathematicians and scientists.

First, I deal with the number of students who have sought admission but so far have not, I understand, gained admission. According to the figures for the autumn of 1961, 517 students classified as acceptable by the clearing house failed to gain admission, and 1,397 classified as borderline cases failed to gain admission. Nearly all these students were wasted to the teaching profession. A small number of them made reapplication. It is interesting to notice that of the borderline cases, who applied— that is, those who were sufficiently persistent, even though classified as borderline, to have another try—73 per cent. of men and 71 per cent. of women in 1961 gained admission. That fact shows that borderline candidates, probably the majority of them, are suitable for admission to a training college. What emerges from these figures of nearly 2,000 applicants, however, is that very few indeed finally gained admission. I understand that the figures this year are much worse.

In reply to a Question of mine a few days ago, the Minister of Education said that he had no figures later than for 28th May. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary today can give us something more up to date. At least, on 28th May the figures were alarming. Two thousand four hundred students who were classified as acceptable were unplaced, in addition to 1,800 borderline students. Unless we are to have a constructive answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that these nearly 4,000 students will not gain admission this year.

Hon. Members opposite frequently charge us on this side with being un-constructive. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary some advice about how to tackle the problem of these students who so far have not been admitted and who, it appears, will not be admitted in the coming autumn. First, the Ministry should give them a guarantee that they will be accepted for training college places and for training, either in September this year by emergency arrangements or in September, 1963.

I consider it quite possible to carry the Trent Park-Southend experiment a stage further and to arrange for groups of students all over the country to be associated with technical colleges and training colleges and to be organised into groups, their training to start in September this year. It would cause great disruption to the inspectorate, tout the inspectorate has under its hand, as it were, a number of qualified ladies and gentlemen who could be put in charge. I suggest that 60 or 70 H.M.I.s could be shepherds for this particular flock of people whilst the emergency exists.

Many of the difficulties which are said to exist are difficulties purely of money and of providing lodging and transport. Few of the difficulties come within the description used by the former Minister of Education on 17th May when, in writing to Mr. Fulton, he said:

"The root causes of this shortage"—

that is, of teachers

"are almost entirely beyond our control."

These matters are not beyond our control. With a little imagination and ingenuity and a lot of hard work during the Summer Recess, these arrangements could be made and the bulk of these students could be started on their training courses.

I distinguish between students classified as acceptable and those who are borderline inasmuch as amongst the latter there are probably some who would do well to go back to school and some, perhaps, who would benefit better by teaching as untrained teachers in the schools. What is required is a guarantee to these students that they will be accepted and that provided they do the things that are required of them, they will be able to come into the training colleges and take the course at the latest in September, 1963.

In that connection, I ask the Government to consider another matter. Every year, some thousands of students apply for training college places but are not accepted and withdraw their application before the end of the year. In 1961, 1,569 students who were graded as acceptable and 951 borderline students withdrew after making application. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to ascertain the reasons—the clearing house gives a list of them—why the students withdraw. These are not students who were accepted by the universities. I beg the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter and to give us the reasons why the students withdraw.

On the face of it, there were in 1961 2,000 students who were not admitted but who persisted in their application to the end, and there were almost 2,500 others Who applied but who, for some reason, finally withdrew their application. It would thus appear as though there is a wastage of about 4,000 potential teachers and the situation this year, I understand, is much worse. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain that it is not as bad as this, but I fear the worst.

When, a few days ago, in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, we had a discussion on the supply of teachers, the Minister of Education referred to a number of emergency measures. I ask that they be carried a stage further. For example, where are the temporary day colleges which are being unearthed and put on an emergency basis? Some of us might be able to help in getting these colleges going if we knew where they were and if we knew which local authorities were trying to get them going. Which are the abandoned premises which are now being rehabilitated? Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, for example, whether Wynyard College is being reopened? I am sure that the only reason why it was abandoned was expense. Admittedly, this is not the kind of situation in which we can entirely ignore expense, but a very different attitude is required to the expenditure of public funds. The Minister said that

"we must in any event consider what further short- or medium-term measures we can take to improve the situation during the years immediately ahead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1962; Vol. 664, c. 196.]

The Minister should be working to an emergency programme and a long-term programme. The two might sometimes appear inconsistent, but undoubtedly there is need for a great many emergency measures to be taken.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, for example, what further overcrowding is taking place with students in the existing training colleges? What proposals has he for the double-banking of accommodation that has been referred to? Why does he seem to think that the Trent Park-Southend experiment was one which, if copied elsewhere, could not be expected to provide a great many more students? I hope that there will be & sense of urgency in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply and that we shall have something on which to work during the Recess. We should like to know what measures have been taken to accommodate the students who so far have not been admitted.

I turn now to the question, of the curriculum in the training colleges, particularly for science. Here, too, two things seem to be needed. Steps need urgently to be taken very much to increase the number of mathematics, physics and chemistry teachers, and to institute a medium-term programme so that within the next three or four years there will be an adequate number of teachers of teachers, both in the universities and in the training colleges.

On 12th July, when the Minister of Education was answering in the scientific debate, he made this statement:

"as we all agree, the real foundation for the training of scientists, technologists, technicians and craftsmen in this country must be first-class teaching in the primary schools."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1653.]

What the Minister did not say, and what he did not seem to know about, was the need to ensure that the women's training colleges took far more interest in the training of scientists. I am sure that one of the untapped sources in providing more scientists and more mathematicians is the girls' schools. It is in the girls' schools and in the women's training colleges that there is unbalance between subjects and not by any means adequate teaching provisions in these subjects.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that one way in which quite promising men and women could gain wider training and better qualifications is by abolishing the rule that if a student receives a Government grant for education, that one grant must be the only grant. In other words, the two-year training college student is ineligible for a university grant. This I think should be very carefully looked at.

The principle does not apply to the university student. The university student receiving his grant for a three or four years' scientific course can later get a D.S.I.R. grant and take a higher degree. The two-year trained teacher is unable to go on to the university by means of public grants. I am quite sure that if many of the third-year supplementary teacher trained students and some teachers with no degrees at all were given an opportunity to take shorter courses at the universities they would come back into the teaching pro- fession and teacher (training colleges much more refreshed and be of great advantage to us in this struggle to get more physics, chemistry and maths teachers.

A subject which is very important but which I have no time to go into, is that we need to switch a good many of our teachers from what one might call the straightforward subjects such as geography, history and literature to the social sciences and to the teaching of Russian. We need a much more flexible attitude to the way in which promising teachers can be seconded, even though we are in an emergency, to follow up new courses, to widen the syllabus and get the sort of subject teaching in the colleges and schools which the nation requires.

This is not to interfere with the actual detailed teaching of subjects. It is not to interfere at all with the curriculum of the schools which is a very touchy matter. What is required is to adjust the overall provision in the national requirements.

The Zuckerman Report made reference to what it thought was an over-supply of biologists. The right hon. Gentleman in the debate on science leaned over backwards to go the other way. He said:

"I entirely agree with all that has been said about the importance of biology. In my view, some commentators in our society today do no service by laying so much emphasis proportionately on physics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1654.]

The right hon. Gentleman may be a bit sorry over that.

Although there was a report which stated that there was need for more biologists, nevertheless a look at the figures shows that there is a great disproportion between the numbers of biologists in women's training colleges and in the girls' schools and the number of teachers of maths, physics and chemistry. However much one values biology, there is a great deal to be said for the transfer of biologists into the other sciences so that there is a rapid increase of mathematicians, phycisists and chemists. I would suggest that in the women's training colleges, the lecturers in biology should be given an opportunity to take a year or two-year course to qualify as first-class teachers in maths, physics or chemistry.

When one refers to the situation, it does not at all correspond to the national needs. I took these figures of maths and science lecturers in the women's training colleges from the Ministry's statistical report, and I think that these bear out my point, Comparing 1959 with 1961 these are the number of lecturers in women's training colleges:

Mathematics: in 1959 there ware 54 and in 1961, 68. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman Co bring me up to dale on this he gave these figures: 63 full-time lecturers in mathematics plus 27 teaching mathematics and other subjects, plus ten part-time and a further two part-time teaching mathematics and other subjects. It is very difficult to make a comparison between 1962, 1961 and 1959 on that basis.

Certainly there looks to be a very great unbalance as between the number of lecturers in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and biology. The figures are as follows: physics 1959, 10; 1961, 11; chemistry, 1959, 24; 1961, 26.

Here is an interesting comment on the value of these statistics. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman to bring me up to date he said that physics and chemistry were not given separately. They are separate in the statistical report for 1959, 1960 and 1961. However, for 1962, the Minister said that there were in the women's training colleges 18 lecturers of physics and chemistry only, plus seven teaching physics and chemistry and other subjects, and six part-time lecturers, five physics and chemistry only, and one physics and chemistry and other subjects.

It would appear, whichever way one looks at it, as though the situation in the teaching in the women's training colleges in physics and chemistry has deteriorated. The figures for 1959 were biology 92 and in 1961, 96. Other scientific subjects 1959, 26, and 1961, 29. This does not at all correspond with the needs of the classes in relation to these subjects. Whether or not the Minister is interested in biology, there is a very great need substantially to increase the number of teachers in maths, physics and chemistry.

The right hon. Gentleman in the same debate seemed very complacent about the number of maths and science graduate teachers in our schools. He said:

"The number of mathematics and scientific graduate teachers in our schools rose in total from 17,800 in 1959 to just over 20,000 in 1961. So the trend is favourable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1962; Vol. 662, 1653.]

I wonder if the trend is as favourable as he makes out. Certainly the total numbers have increased, but he gave no account at all of the numbers that require to be taught nor did he make any reference to the great increase in the number of sixth form and fifth form students who would require extra teaching.

I spent a little time doing some homework on his figures and on the statistical report. Perhaps I can explain my method. I estimated from the figures sent to me on 31st July, that is, the number of graduate teachers in grant-aided schools who have mathematics, physics or chemistry as first subject degrees and the number of G.C.E. "O" level and "A" level students. I worked over these increases in relation to what seemed to me to be the classroom requirements. I estimated each unit of 30 G.C.E. "O" level and G.C.E. "A" level students as representing one class and I took the proportion of the teacher for each one of these classes. My proportion was one-fifth of a teacher for G.C.E. "O" level classes, two-fifths for advanced level and one-tenth of a teacher teaching physics or chemistry at "O" level—that is, three periods a week, and one-fifth for Advanced level.

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that these estimates are on the conservative side. It is probably desirable to have a larger proportion of a teacher than this. I then added to the requirements the 90,000 extra pupils that were in secondary schools in the last year 1960–61, which is 3,000 extra classes and the mathematical requirements of one-fifth of a teacher for each class. I took the figures for physics and chemistry as one-twelth of a teacher, being a little more conservative there.

When the extra numbers in the secondary schools for 1959–60 are added, making 108,000 pupils, one has need for extra teaching for 3,600 extra classes. In other words, I took the number of those who would be required to teach mathematics, physics and chemistry for the bulge of 6,600 extra classes and added to that the numbers of G.C.E. "O" level and G.C.E. "A" level classes, the figures given to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I then compared the total increase for mathematics, physics and chemistry graduate teachers with those figures that the Minister gave. This is the figure, on this method of working out, comparing the situation in mathematics, for example, in 1959 with 1961. It is an increase of 434.

There was an increase of 25,695 G.C.E. "O" level entrants. This would require on the basis of 30 pupils per teacher 170 extra teachers; at "A" level 16,000-odd, requiring an extra 160. Then taking the 6,600 extra classes in the secondary schools, we arrive at the figure of an extra number required, to see that the situation in mathematics teaching in 1961 would be the same as in 1959 —and 1959 was not a particularly good year: for that we should require 330 extra to cope with the G.C.E. and 1,320 to cope with the bulge. This gives a figure of 1,650 extra mathematicians required compared with the 434 the right hon. Gentleman boasted about.

This seems to me, even if my averages are a little out, not a thing to be complacent about. It is obvious that the real situation in the teaching of mathematics in our schools today has deteriorated since 1959. The actual figures are biassed in my favour, because merely dividing by 30 and saying this is the class, is not what happens. There are secondary modern schools with classes of 15 and there are not many grammar schools with over 30 in a class. Therefore we require more teachers for mathematical subjects. Moreover, in practice, the numbers are unequally distributed.

Even if we add the teachers who have had supplementary courses of mathematical training the figure still does not look very much better because, of the one-year supplementary courses, the increase for 1960–61 and 1961–62 is only 51 and the number of teachers who have been through short courses in science and mathematics for junior schools has actually decreased. The number who have been through short courses for secondary schools shows a very slight increase. Whatever way one looks at it, unless the hon. Gentleman can produce some very new figures, and I do not think he can, the situation of teaching mathematics would appear to have deteriorated.

Let me give abbreviated figures in relation to the other two subjects. For example, my calculations were that we needed a further 620 teachers of chemistry. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been an increase in 1959 compared with 1961 of 330, so that in fact there was a net deterioration of some 300. If one looks at the figures for physics the situation is no different. My calculations show that merely to stand still in 1959 there was a requirement of 634 teachers of physics. In fact the extra number of teachers was 282.

Although these figures are a bit involved, I shall be very glad to have comment on them by the Parliamentary Secretary, although it is a little bit unfair suddenly to throw these calculations at him. Leaving figures aside, I hope that the Minister will take some very drastic steps in relation to this subject.

Finally, I come to the question of the way in which students come to study their subjects. It is out of touch with national needs. I have here the subjects taken at "A" level by training college students admitted to college in 1960. These are the latest figures available. Students going to a three-year training college with "A" level subjects in 1960 showed there is a very great unbalance as between men and women and a very great unbalance as between the arts and the sciences.

For example, the actual numbers of students with art qualifications are 192 men with Advanced level and 740 women. I am quite sure that the autistic talents of the nation are not so ill distributed between men and women as that figure indicates. In English literature at "A" level there were 582 men and 2,430 women. This shows fairly conclusively that as between English literature and science, English literature is regarded as a soft option and active steps must be taken to break the vicious circle, that because there are plenty of English teachers, the students go on studying it The need is to produce the mathematicians and scientists and it is not being grappled with.

The actual figures for advanced applied mathematics are not so wide apart, 69 men at "A" level and 75 girls; in pure mathematics 259 men and 235 girls. There must be many more girls who could take these subjects and it seems that much of this scientific and mathematical talent among girls is being wasted.

In physics there were 275 men and 127 women; in chemistry 243 men and 139 women. The biology figures show exactly the opposite pattern, 290 men and 660 girls.

I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not only to take steps immediately to see that more provision is made for scientific studies in the training colleges but that efforts are made in the schools to get more and more girls to take these subjects. It is not so much that in the women's training colleges and in the junior schools a high degree of mathematics knowledge and scientific knowledge is necessary as that, unless there is interest in the training colleges in these subjects and they are scientifically taught, the effect will not be felt in the schools.

I suppose that of all Members of the House I have the most recent experience of a training college. I wish to pay tribute to those who work in these colleges, because I think that they have been maligned in the Press and very unjustly. I should like to say "Thank you" to those who taught me, and particularly to Dr. Inglis and his staff, of Moray House College of Education, in Edinburgh.

I feel that unless some drastic action is taken we may have a similar debate to this next year and the year after and the year after that right up to 1970, because I think that basically this is a long-term problem. Would the Government consider a crash programme of residential training colleges? They may say that residential training colleges are more expensive and slower to build than the more orthodox form, but I think they have great, real advantages. Is it not a most important aspect of a training college that the students should be able to discuss among themselves their experiences, and to talk late at night, as in a university, about their own reading? Is it not true that in a teachers' training college, in ideal conditions, more is learned by the students from their own contemporaries than formally from the instructions of H.M.I.s and from other training college teachers?

The Government ought to consider putting these training colleges in areas of high and persistent unemployment, because they give in themselves a great many jobs. There is also an academic advantage. This stems from the belief particularly of primary teachers that nature study and the whole subject of ecology is most important in teaching our youngsters, so there is an argument for training colleges based in country areas of persistent unemployment. Again, the study of geology is of great inherent interest of youngsters aged 11, 12, 13. They love going around chipping at rocks. This is a subject of great interest to them. I think that geology could be developed at training colleges sited in particularly suitable areas, away from towns, where teachers could give practical experience, in easy reach.

But in relation to our short-term problem I wish to make a suggestion. A number of those who are suitable—and I emphasise that it should not be all— taken from those who might have been refused in 1962, should be given an opportunity, after a year's teaching, to go to a training college, because many of our more sensible and mature students would derive greater benefit from a training college, after a year in the schools, and not before they go to their first teaching. Therefore, both on grounds of administrative convenience and also for the benefit of the students concerned, the Government should look into the possibility of sending a number of the more suitable students to school this year, so that they, the Government, will have fifteen months' grace to take action, before 1963, in the way of providing places.

There is a possible objection to this argument, namely, that they would not have the appropriate qualifications from their so-called "crit" lessons. But these "crit" lessons are a little bogus anyway, because they are carried out under entirely artificial surroundings. Out of sheer loyalty the youngsters in the schools where the "crit" lessons take place behave very well when they see their teachers being examined, because, on the whole, they have nice natures These lessons are not a criterion of a teacher's ability, and on the grounds of qualification they could be dispensed with.

I do not propose to follow the statistical arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), but there is one category to which attention should be paid. I refer to our budding teachers of physical training. The Parliamentary Secretary may have considerable personal sympathy with this argument. Teachers of physical training are more subject to injury—possible cartilage injury, or incipient arthritis—and there is no more pathetic sight in our schools than to see those of 40, 45 and 50 years of age struggling away teaching physical training, long after the age when it is reasonable to expect them to do so. I ask the hon. Member to consider whether provision could be made in training courses so that those who took up physical training teaching could do this for the first fifteen years of their teaching lives and afterwards be allowed to take the top classes in primary schools.

I am worried, as a result of my personal observation, about the immaturity of many of those who are behind teachers' desks today. My generation of men did National Service. It changed us, and made us a little more competent. I had the good fortune to be sent to the Salzburg seminar of American studies by the training college which I attended. Nowadays men are going behind teachers' desks shortly after their 21st birthday. The hon. Member may say that this is what happened during the 1930s. He may ask what the difference is. There is a considerable difference.

In the 1930s we were dealing with "children". Nowadays, however, the so-called "youngsters" that we have to teach in secondary schools are by no stretch of the imagination children in the old sense. The whole concept of chronological age has become suspect. It would be more realistic to talk about post-pubertal age because many of those who are 12 or 13 years of age chronologically are two, three, or even four years past puberty. This is why it is desirable that the teachers themselves should be much more mature—much more men and women of the world.

In these circumstances the Government should consider providing some alien experience for them. I ask the hon. Member to pay particular attention to the experiment of taking 90 potential teachers from Moray House, Edinburgh on the British-India ship school "Dunera", in September, to Stockholm, Leningrad and Copenhagen, as a group, in order to help them with their training. If this is a success, I ask the hon. Member to consider whether the scheme could not be enlarged by using the troopship "Oxfordshire", or "Nevasa", which will be coming off Government charter and which, because of a breach of contract, will, in any case, cost the taxpayers between £8½ million and £10 million. This is an opportunity for the Ministry of Education to experiment. I am not telling the hon. Member that he must do this, but I ask him to see whether it is possible.

If we operated on the lines of Voluntary Service Overseas and took some of these potential teachers on ships that might otherwise be useless, to places such as Africa or the Far East, it would be a good thing. Hon. Members may say that this would be exceedingly expensive. They may ask how we could possibly face such costs when we are not paying the teachers enough as it is. But if the hon. Member's party is serious about financial help to underdeveloped countries, and about giving them the sterling that they so badly need for their development plans, this is the sort of way in which they can earn that sterling. It is certainly expensive to send a group of 20 young teachers to Ashanti for twelve months, or to Malaya, to finish their training, but, it would provide the sterling, and it would be satisfactory to such countries, to the extent that it would not smell of charity.

The hon. Member has travelled a lot in Africa, and he will realise that charity has certain political connotations. But under-developed countries would be earning money if they were giving facilities to our teachers, and I am sure that if our teachers went abroad before settling down to their professional of women, they would benefit both in careers or their married lives, in the case knowledge and in maturity. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to contact the Arden Clarke Committee in order to obtain its views on the subject.

If it is not presumptious of me on my first appearance at this Box to do so, I should like to thank the horn. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for raising the important questions and issues which he has done today affecting teacher training colleges. For more personal reasons I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to stand in this vulnerable position for the first time on an occasion when the fire, though accurately directed, has not come from too many quarters.

The hon. Member has raised points relating to student grants and I hope that I may be able to reassure him. The hon. Member suggested that the recruitment of teachers might be hampered by the restriction on students' grants to a certain number of years; as, for example, in cases where students switch to teacher training colleges after having failed their degree course or having left the universities after a year or two. It is true that normally a limit is set at a total of four years and this does seem reasonable. Evidently a limit must be set somewhere.

It would be wrong to encourage and assist the perennial student out of public funds. But it allows someone who has already done two years at the university to have two more grant-aided years at a teacher training college if need be. And although in normal circumstances this limit is sat it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend nor is it the practice of the Ministry to apply it in any rigid fashion. In exceptional cases we are quite prepared to consider allowing grant for a longer period than four years when there are good grounds for doing so.

I noticed a letter in The Times Educational Supplement last week suggesting that many additional teachers could be found from among those students who come down from the universities after failing to qualify after their first or second year examinations. The argument was that these young people might eater the profession if given the opportunity, but they were being neglected. This is not the case. The Ministry has encouraged the area training organisations and training colleges to consider admitting such students to training, and they have said that a student who has received assistance from public funds for a degree or other non-vocational course, and who has withdrawn after not more than two years, can be allowed further grant aid to train as a teacher provided always, of course, that the authorities are satisfied as to the student's suitability for training.

I am obliged for what the hon. Gentleman has said, which is very helpful. I am also thinking of teachers who have done their three years' training and wish to take a mathematics or physics degree at university. Under the present rule they are barred. Will the Ministry relax that rule, too?

I would hesitate to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman at this stage, because I know of his experience in these matters, but I believe that they are not barred. There is no regulation prohibiting a grant being given to a person who has completed three years' training at a teacher training college and who wants to go on to university. It is up to the local authority.

I think that a number of local authorities may operate a regulation where, normally, they will not give more than a total of four years' grant-aided education; but it is purely up to the local education authority. If a student who goes to a teacher training college wishes to take a full degree course, I believe that I am right in saying that there is no Ministry of Education regulation to prohibit him from doing so. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurance that it is our intention to ensure that these useful recruits to the teaching profession are not lost as a result of rulings about grant aid.

I turn now to the major questions about supply which the hon Member has raised. Here, as my right hon. Friend told the House on Monday night, we are faced with a problem which has developed seriously in recent years. The principal reasons are well known. They were unexpected. I submit that they could not have been foreseen. They are twofold. There has been a sharp and sustained rise in the birthrate, holding out the prospect of a 25 per cent. increase in the school population between 1960 and 1980. Secondly, the age at which women marry and have children has dropped, with the result that half the women who qualify from teacher training colleges today leave the service four years later. If the present trend continues, it will be the fact that in 1970 only 40 per cent. of women teachers will teach for as long as four years, at any rate initially.

Neither of these trends, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) remarked in that debate, should in themselves be anything but a cause for joy. That can be readily accepted. One may happily welcome the additional children and the greater and earlier eligibility of women teachers. But the problems raised for the education service are challenging. In this situation the training colleges have a particular duty to ensure that their facilities are used to meet the needs of the schools as precisely as possible. In the circumstances they are striving not only to produce as many teachers as they can, but to achieve the right balance between the subjects taught in the colleges and the right balance between the training of teachers for primary and secondary work.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland suggested that the correct balance is not being struck in the subjects taught in training colleges. He argued that too many girls are taking art subjects and that on the science side there should be some switch from biology and the like to mathematics and physics. In the case of mathematics, there has been a general increase in the number of students, both men and women, who take a main course in the subject. Of the 1961–62 intake, 1,470 students are taking mathematics as a main course compared with 524 in 1952-53, and I think that the figures show a fairly steady rise in recent years.

There has also been an appreciable increase in the number taking science, but it is not as large as one would have liked to see in terms of the proportion of all new entrants. There are 2,700 taking science now compared with 1,540 in 1952–53. Within the science field there are welcome signs of a tendency to switch to the physics and chemistry side. The number of men students in physics and chemistry has increased in these nine years from 90 to 330. Among the women 220 of the 1961– 62 intake are now studying physics and chemistry compared with only 20 in 1952–53. But the proportion of students who take these subjects as a main course is still only 3·7 per cent. and I agree with the hon. Member that there is scope here for a greater number.

The problem here is basically not one of facilities so much as obtaining the right number of students with the appropriate qualifications and inclinations. Nonetheless 20 colleges are providing a special combined force in chemistry, physics and biology for secondary teachers in secondary schools. All these colleges are being enlarged under the expansion programme and in each case the building project is specially designed to give them first-rate facilities for science teaching.

The hon. Member referred to training college admissions and here, of course, is a matter of particular interest this coining autumn since 1962–63 will be the first year in which the general colleges have had to accommodate three intakes concurrently. This is the result of the three-year course being introduced for students entering college in the autumn of 1960 or later; I imagine that the introduction of the three-year course would be commanded by all those interested in education.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a point about maturity, but the change-over from a two-year to a three-year course will help in this respect. It means that the teacher, all other things being equal, is at least a year older when he enters the college. For this year this raises particular difficulties and those difficulties over places have coincided with a gratifying increase in the number of applicants for entry.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that possibly a measurement of chronological time is not so relevant as the necessity of having some other experience out of classrooms and the like?

I believe there is a great deal in what the hon. Member says. I have been particularly interested, for example, in Voluntary Service Overseas, which gives the young people leaving school the opportunity of working abroad. I concede to him that there are many people who will benefit from that kind of experience right away from school and school life.

For this particular year there are these special difficulties. They have coincided, as I have said, with a gratifying increase in the number of applicants for entry. The idea of good candidates being turned away at the time of teacher shortage is a distressing one, but let us at least welcome the fact that a part of our difficulty is due to the increased attraction of the teaching profession for young people. There has been a quite dramatic change here. Not very many years ago the training colleges were having great difficulty in filling all the places available. Today, the position is very different. Despite an intake of about 16,500 compared with 12,500 in 1957, the training colleges are faced with some embarrassment of riches.

It is sometimes argued that the increased competition for entry to training colleges will make the teaching profession less attractive to young people. This is not an argument that rings true to me. I do not believe that the attraction of a job is increased by the knowledge that it is easy to get. In my experience quite the reverse is the case. Although I have no inclination to do battle with the Foreign Office, it always seemed to me when I was at the university that a very large part of the Foreign Service's attraction for the most brilliant undergraduates was the knowledge that it was extremely hard to get into.

In the situation of this year, however, my right hon. Friend recognises that there is a danger that useful and much-needed recruits will be lost to the profession, and this is particularly true for women. The Ministry drew attention to this last year and urged colleges to do all they could, laying stress on day admissions. A further letter this spring asked colleges to make still further efforts to find day and lodging places.

In the event, admissions are likely to be maintained at a remarkably high level. We are hopeful that no fewer than 16,450 candidates will be admitted, virtually repeating the figures for the past two years, which were a record. This, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland conceded, is not being achieved without very great effort, and the colleges, having resorted to all sorts of shifts to achieve these numbers, are now very heavily overcrowded.

Two examples of the means by which training colleges have increased their intake are that one rural college of 240 places has obtained about 100 places in lodgings by writing round to all local parish priests, and in another instance a college is taking up hotel rooms out of season. There has, therefore, been no lack of inventiveness. I should like to pay tribute, as did the hon. Member, to the colleges for their efforts.

But there is a continuing need to search for unorthodox means of increasing the colleges' intake. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland drew particular attention to one enterprising scheme, the link between Trent Park College, in Middlesex, and Southend Technical College, whereby Southend has been accepting students from Trent Park for a year's training in music, drama and art. The scheme has produced additional places and despite the obvious difficulties and objections, the enthusiasm of those concerned has made the arrangement work. My right hon. Friend is very grateful for these efforts, and he has been glad to approve the continuation of the scheme for a further period.

The hon. Member asked why we do not urge this scheme more vigorously upon all other training and technical colleges. The fact is that it has already achieved considerable publicity, and although no other college has as yet decided to follow exactly this example, there can be none which remains unaware of the experiment. But we doubt whether this particular solution, which involves all the difficulties of a suitable course to a group of students very largely cut off from the college, could easily be applied over a wide field.

Other forms of co-operation between training and technical colleges are already in successful operation. One of great flexibility is to use subject teaching at a technical college to ease the load on a training college in the area. This has happened in Doncaster and Kingston upon Hull, where training college students go to a technical college for training in science or mathematics.

I am advised, however, that it would be wishful thinking to imagine that a very large increase could be achieved by this sort of means. There is growing pressure on technical college accommodation, which is needed for their own purposes. If training colleges are to be helped by technical colleges in this way, they must be able to count upon accommodation for extra students for several years ahead, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for technical colleges to mortgage their space in this way. But some special arrangements should be profitable, and my right hon. Friend is ready to consider any soundly-based co-operativs scheme. I have no doubt that many of these arrangements, including the Trent Park-Southend experiment, will be included by the National Advisory Council in its current examination of the means of improving training college output.

The main solution has to be sought in expanding the training colleges' own output. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's predecessor could be accused of any lack of vigour in this respect. On 17th May the Ministry wrote to education authorities saying that the short-term implications of the situation were being considered by the N.A.C. but that the Minister had decided to initiate straight away two emergency measures.

In the first place, authorities were invited to submit proposals for the establishment of temporary day colleges in suitable existing premises in the heavily populated areas. These temporary colleges would be intended primarily for candidates, mainly girls in the first instance, entering direct from school, in contrast with the existing day colleges, which cater mostly for mature students. Secondly, the authorities concerned were asked to keep on for the time being, if this was practicable, training college premises that were scheduled to be abandoned and replaced through a building project on the expansion programme.

The hon. Member asked me for details of this, but I am not able to give them to him. He will understand that in a number of instances negotiations are at a delicate point and that the local authorities do not wish us to reveal what day colleges may be opened up. However, I can say that we are consulting the Durham and Middlesbrough authorities about the possibility of temporary day colleges.

There is no doubt about the readiness to help of local education authorities in the well populated areas. The difficulty almost everywhere, as was expected, has been to find suitable existing premises in Which to house a temporary day college. A fair number of authorities have, however, found or are expecting to find suitable premises and we are hoping that in the end we might manage to secure the establishment of up to ten temporary colleges, most of them opening in September, 1963, though some might well take the form of annexes to nearby colleges and not have an independent existence.

Under the expansion programme some existing colleges are scheduled to be replaced by new and larger colleges on different sites and others are due to give up unsatisfactory portions of their existing premises and, in particular, to get rid of hutted accommodation. We are still discussing with authorities ways and means of continuing to use this sort of accommodation for the time being in an effective and economical way, but it is already clear that about 1,500 places can be secured by the retention of redundant premises of this kind.

By these means and because of the additional training places becoming available next year—there are, of course, additional places that will be finished in the autumn of next year—we can hope for a record intake into training colleges in 1963.

In the light of these better prospects for 1963, my right hon. Friend has very carefully considered the point that the hon. Member put to me this afternoon as to whether we should not, in effect, mortgage some of these places for this year's unsuccessful candidates who might, for example, be promised a place if they would seek a temporary teaching post meanwhile. The hon. Member for West Lothian also made that point. I think that both hon. Members will accept the phrase that I have used, because this is what they are asking us to do.

The important point is to select not those who happen to be at the end of the list, but those who are already mature and would benefit from a year in the school where they can cope and can then go on with their training.

Yes. I am sure that the hon. Member realises that this would reduce the numbers that we can take next year. This is clearly so, or it will put back training for a large number of students for one year for a good while ahead.

My right hon. Friend has decided against this, with the backing of the National Advisory Council, because we fear that we should simply be storing up difficulties for the future at a time of mounting pressure from candidates. Although there will be more places next year, we can expect a greater number of applicants too, because there is likely to be a higher output in 1963 from the sixth forms.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with the 4,000 missing ones? My point was not that the future should be mortgaged, but that the 4,000 or so students who are not to get places this year should start on a training course—I suggested how it could be done—and that, if some of them could be accommodated, the future should be mortgaged but only for a limited number of the 4,000.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. I assure him that these very specific suggestions that he put to me will be considered very carefully. The point that I was making was that it is not widely practicable to say to students who have failed this year, "We can guarantee you a place next year simply because you are accepted to be of a very satisfactory standard". The only consequence of that might be that we might either have to do the same or to refuse altogether training to satisfactory students in the following year.

The hon. Gentleman asked for later figures than he received the other day There is not a great deal that I can do to help him there. I understand that it is very difficult for the clearing house to give an accurate picture of the position at this stage in the proceedings, because there are still the applicants who have not found places, but who will yet find places, and there are still some who will withdraw because they have gained places at universities or for other reasons. Therefore, the position is rather fluid and unclear. I can say, however, that the reasons for these withdrawals, will be looked at and that the point which the hon. Gentleman made is, I think, being met by the Department. The figure for acceptances which I have for 30th June is 15,600, and these are firm acceptances.

Because of this, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any unorthodox measures, and is encouraging the training colleges to do all they can to fit in additional students in this difficult year. But there is a balancing consideration to the fore in my right hon. Friend's mind. He is very much aware that the training colleges are emerging as important institutions of higher educa-tion. They are not just production belts, and their success is not to be judged solely by the number of teachers they produce. For women, in particular, they provide a higher education that will have a value far beyond the teaching profession. Their problem, therefore, and it is shared by my right hon. Friend, is how to balance numbers against quality. We are expanding the colleges and, at the same time, lengthening and improving the course.

The colleges aspire to provide more and more a university type of life for their students, such as was described by the hon. Member for Midlothian. I can say to him, incidentally, on that point, that the expansion programmes do provide increased residential accommodation. One must agree that in the present difficulties one cannot let the best be the enemy of the good. My right hon. Friend has a balance to strike. He will strive vigorously to increase the intake. He referred the other night to some of the ideas in his mind, and he will be grateful for the further suggestions that have been put forward this afternoon. His concern is not only for quantity but quality of life and training in the colleges. This must set some limit to the expedients that he and they will be able to tolerate even in this particularly difficult year.

I think that I have shown that the colleges are making quite remarkable efforts to accommodate every student they can this year, and I hope that, when the accounts are finally drawn up, even if I have not been able to give the hon. Gentleman definite figures today, the gap between reasonably well qualified applicants and acceptances wild not be as large as the hon. Member fears.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for some time I have been trying to raise on the Adjournment the subject of free speech and disturbances at meetings, as it deeply affects many of my constituents. Unfortunately, because of the luck of the Ballot, I have not succeeded. I am all the more grateful to Mr. Speaker for permitting me to do so in this, the last, hour before the House departs for the Summer Recess.

A great deal of public attention has been given to this subject in the last few days. Obviously, it involves very serious issues, and has certainly aroused great concern. It is all the more serious because the House will have in mind the racial trouble that has arisen in the last few days in the Midlands, which was described by a police superintendent as

"A pack of ravening wolves after the prey, shouting, and brandishing weapons."

It may be surmised that young people at an impressionable age may be influenced by this vicious propaganda, and there is, therefore, no need to apologise for pressing this matter on the attention of the House.

A Motion appeared on the Order Paper yesterday, signed by many hon. Members which, inter alia, declared its belief that freedom of speech within the law is the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Variations of that theme have appeared on the Order Paper today.

I would be the last person to seek to make any general attack on the right of free speech; at the same time, the doctrine of free speech must be distinguished from abuse of free speech. It never has been the law of the land that free speech is absolute. For instance, it is not so unlimited as to permit people to libel others, or to give voice to views or utterances likely to result in immediate public danger.

Professor Goodhart, in a recent letter, drew attention to some words spoken by Mr. Justice Holmes in the American case of Schenck v. United States, which can be quoted as being applicable here:

"The character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. … The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing panic. … It is a question of proximity and degree."

One can take a glaring example from language used in literature put forward by what is called the National Socialist Movement. The expression, "Hitler was right" really means, does it not, that the spokesmen of that party are saying that a campaign of wholesale murder, not only of men but of women and small children, waged over years, was fully justified and praiseworthy? The House may remember that one of the most moving pieces of evidence in the Eichmann case was how Allied troops found thousands of pairs of children's shoes belonging to the innocent victims of Hitler's administration, and the House may think it hard to find any more dreadful doctrine than one that condones and praises that sort of thing.

I appreciate that the last thing one wants to do is to inflate the importance of the rather pitiful group of political crackpots who disseminate this sort of stuff. At the same time, as I have said, one must bear in mind that there are many young people who may be influenced by what these people say. It is, perhaps, not surprising, when one remembers that in this country we suffered from grievous losses in a long war against National Socialism, that dissemination of these views should have led many people to take the law into their own hands. Is it not too much to expect that people whose kith and kin suffered in concentration camps— who were tortured and killed—should exercise a due restraint in the face of what has been said? No doubt, of course, the ideal way of dealing with meetings at which these views are disseminated would be for people to ignore them, but this, a counsel of perfection, is, quite clearly, impossible.

There is this further consideration. In other countries, where the rights of free speech and political tolerance are not so well established, the holding of these meetings under police protection may not only be misinterpreted but may encourage the growth of the neo-Nazi movement—which the constitutions of those countries are less well equipped to resist. In this connection, I am glad to know that the Home Secretary has refused permission to persons who were to attend a conference of the movement in Britain. It would, indeed, be an unhappy day if this country were to achieve the reputation of being a meeting place for international Nazis.

Last Wednesday leave was given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Order Act. I am not permitted, by the rules of order, to discuss legislation, but my object today is to ask the Home Secretary to consider what can be done to deal with the problem within the existing law. I wish, first, to consider which laws might be applied to the holding of public meetings at which Nazi or racial views are likely to be promulgated, and, secondly, to consider, as a matter of policy, in what circumstances and to what extent it is desirable, in the public interest, that action should be taken.

The Home Secretary, in his statement yesterday, said time and again that there was no power to ban a public meeting. He said that there was a difference concerning meetings in Trafalgar Square, where, apparently, the custom appears to be that permission must be obtained from the Minister of Works. If this is so—at any rate, for meetings in Trafalgar Square—there seems no reason why such permission could not be refused when it is obviously right to do so. In fact, there have been refusals in a number of cases.

It was for that reason that a considerable time before the Jordan meeting took place I pointed out the obvious results which would follow if that meeting were allowed to be held. I sought, by Question, letter and personal interview, in the company of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet)—unsuccessfully—to have that meeting stopped. I am tempted to say that had it been stopped in response to our representations a good deal of the later trouble could have been avoided.

I respectfully draw the attention of the Minister to two cases; the Queen v. Cunninghame, Graham and Burns, in 1888, which, as far as I know, is still good law and the case of Duncan v. Jones, in 1936. The decision in Cun-ninghame's case showed that the law recognised no right of public meeting in any public thoroughfare. The use of the thoroughfare is for people to pass and repass along it. In that case it was stated that the Commissioner of Police, being the officer responsible for the preservation of peace and order in the Metropolis, was in duty bound to take all necessary precautions to preserve order.

The Commissioner was fully justified, in accordance with his duty, in issuing a public notice that public meetings would not be permitted to take place in any place of public resort under his control where he had reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace was likely to result. Indeed, in that case, with regard to Trafalgar Square, it was on that ground that the Commissioner did issue such a notice.

The learned judge in that case stated that Trafalgar Square was under the control and supervision of the police in the same way as any other street, public place or thoroughfare in the Metropolis. The case of Duncan v. Jones showed clearly that if a breach of the peace is apprehended as a result of a meeting being held, and if the promoters are warned of this, if they endeavour to hold the meeting they can be dealt with under our criminal law for the offence of obstructing the police in the discharge of their duty.

I suggest that these decisions show that the Commissioner has power to deal with this matter effectively and can prevent a meeting from being held if a breach of the peace is apprehended. Such circumstances, for example, as attempting to hold a meeting in a place like Ridley Road, which adjoins my constituency, a neighbourhood where hitherto the very people attacked have lived peaceably and happily, speak for themselves.

There is, next, the power under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which makes it an offence for any person at a public meeting to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned. There is further what is a misdemeanour at common law, the speaking of seditious words. Words spoken and published with the intention of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects may constitute the offence of speaking seditious words.

There is, finally, the misdemeanour of taking part in an unlawful assembly—an assembly of three or more persons with intent to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace in consequence of it. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous on my part to have reminded the House of these powers in some detail. I respectfully submit that within the existing law there is ample power to deal with the holding of such public meetings.

I turn now to consider the second point. As a matter of policy, in what circumstances and to what extent in the public interest should action be taken? I appreciate what is really over-anxiety to preserve the doctrine of free speech. I have dealt with that. I appreciate, also, the danger that prosecutions for some of these offences might in certain circumstances defeat their object, by giving unnecessary publicity to the activities of a lunatic fringe and possibly bestow the crown of martydom on some of them.

I recognise that it is not an easy problem. But against these considerations I pose these questions; are we to allow this growing menace to continue with all its perils? Are these people to be allowed to meet, as they are doing, under the protection of a considerable police force, which could be far more usefullly employed elsewhere, or have we not the right to demand, and is it not wiser in the circumstances that have arisen, that the law as it exists today Should be enforced so as to control, if not entirely to prevent, this ugly movement in British life?

The Home Secretary said yesterday that he deplored what had happened and he promised to give the problem careful consideration and examination during the next three months. There are already announcements of further meetings of this kind to be held during that period. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) pointed out yesterday, the Recess is just the time when open-air demonstrations take place. The House will not be sitting, so that any difficulties which arise cannot be brought to the attention of the House I would, therefore, beg the Home Secretary not to delay in this matter. I suggest that the existing law provides sufficient safeguards to enable the situation to be dealt with immediately and effectively.

I think that we are all grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke New-ington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitz-man) for having raised this most import-ant topic. Apart from being one of the sponsors of the Bill designed to amend the Public Order Act, 1936, which was introduced on Wednesday, I have had considerable experience of these Ridley Road meetings as a prospective candidate for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North some years ago, and I could see at that stage how dangerous these things can become.

I emphasise and underline what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. He is perfectly right to say that, although we all support freedom of speech, this freedom is not absolute. In a letter to the Observer of 15th July, Professor A. L. Goodhart, of Oxford, said:

"The common law has always recognised that there is no such absolute doctrine, for there must be limitations on this freedom, just as there are in regard to all other freedoms."

Professor Goodhart goes on to say that it would not be right to go into a theatre and falsely cry out "Fire" and thereby create panic. It would not be right to form a meeting outside a person's house and try to intimidate him in some way. Carrying the matter further, we find in the law today provision against obscenity and against profanity.

I approach this matter from the standpoint that, while in this home of democracy we all wish to ensure that we have the maximum freedom of speech, we must be absolutely certain that the minorities in our midst are amply safeguarded. To quote again from Professor Goodhart's interesting letter:

"It may be suggested that a statement that Hitler was right, thus implying that the murder of five million Jews was justified, can hardly fall within any reasonable doctrine of freedom of speech."

We live in an age when we are subjected to propaganda from all manner of sources, an age, also, when some of the experiences we have now, after the war, are not quite the same as experiences before the war. Anyone who has had the opportunity of reading Mein Kampf by that unscrupulous leader of Germany will recall the suggestion about the theme "ten-times repeated and it pleases". If these falsehoods are allowed to pass into the pubic mind, they can, in the course of years, do incalculable damage.

I emphasise also—this is borne out by the statement of Professor Goodhart —that it is not open to hold a meeting in any public place, not merely by virtue of the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred but for other reasons at common law. I very strongly hold the opinion that the meeting which recently took place should never have been allowed in Trafalgar Square, which is the centre of London. Meetings of this kind should be moved, if possible, to Marble Arch, where there are already a number of speakers to be heard, and some guidance for the conduct of them should be laid down by law.

Approaching the matter from another angle, the right to freedom of speech carries with it the concomitant right on the part of the listening public to attend. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that, if inflammatory statements are made, those who listen will not retaliate or react. When certain things are said, they have a right of self-defence. They have a right to indicate their views. Although I have read with interest what was said in The Times this morning, suggesting that it might be thuggery which is producing difficulties in other parts of the country, I suggest that that is something of an over-simplification. Many genuine people are concerned about the future of their own community, and they are perfectly right to come forward in their own defence.

It is open to the Home Secretary to consider what the law is today and properly interpret it, but I tell the House that I do not know precisely what the law is and I suggest that it is very difficult to interpret it. The Home Secretary has an opportunity to deal with the matter now, but I am rather alarmed at the prospect of three months elapsing during which time meetings may be arranged and action may follow. This is a very serious possibility, and I hope that my right hon. Friend has in mind an immediate way of dealing with these matters should they arise.

I turn now to another aspect of the matter. The public generally can adopt what is, perhaps, the wise policy of remaining away from these meetings. The Press, for their part, can play a very important rô1e. The newspapers have been saying, "Why not boycott these meetings?" But they have been giving them the maximum publicity. If this sort of thing goes on, more people will attend and these meetings will spread throughout the country.

Therefore, a special plea goes out from this House today—I am sure it has the support of all Members in the Chamber —to encourage the Press to adopt the attitude which it adopted some years ago in Dalston, namely, not to give any publicity to the people who are causing such difficulties in the country. I hope that through being deprived of publicity they will gradually fade out. Let us make no mistake about this. We paid very expensively for the atrocities perpetrated not only during but prior to the last war, and we should take early steps to ensure that they are not repeated.

We should consider several matters apart from the one to which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newing-ton and Hackney, North referred. We should not provide any dangerous example which will be followed in European countries, such as West Germany and Italy, where people have a different approach to these matters. If we encourage these people to adopt our form of freedom of speech we should be careful that they do not reconstitute Fascism, which would be a great shame on all civilisation. We do not want the perpetration of crimes such as those which were experienced prior to the war.

The United Nations has had an opportunity of considering this matter, and I should like to refer to the resolution adopted by the Economic and Social Council on 27th July, 1961. After saying that it was

"deeply disturbed by the continued existence and manifestations of racial prejudice and national and religious intolerance in different parts of the world ",

the Council makes recommendations calling

"upon the Governments of all States to take all necessary steps to rescind discriminatory laws which have the effect of creating and perpetuating racial prejudice and national and religious intolerance wherever they still exist, to adopt legislation, if necessary, for prohibiting such discrimination, and to take such legislative or other appropriate measures to combat such prejudice and intolerance.

Recommends to the Governments of all States to discourage in every possible way the creation, propagation and dissemination, in whatever form, of such prejudice and intolerance".

I should have thought that that made it perfectly clear to this House that we are being enjoined by the United Nations to ensure that our law is consonant with these recommendations. It is most important not only that we should make a (thorough analysis of it but also, by observing the precepts laid down here, we safeguard this country against the sort of things which happened years ago.

I realise that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, particularly one who has a right and duty to speak on this occasion if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I shall try to make what I have to say as short as possible.

I have raised this matter on many occasions and have seen the Ministers about it. I speak on behalf of a vast number of people, including some 500,000 who happen to be of the Jewish faith. Sixty thousand of these are represented by an ex-Service men's organisation of which I am a vice-president, A.J.E.X. A number of them are members of another organisation which is part of the British Legion and bears the very distinguished Jewish name of a general, General Monash, who gallantly did his duty in the First World War.

Unhappily, I saw the beginning of these things in Whitechapel. While the atrocities were taking place in Germany, a large number of Germans were begging for something to be done to prevent the spread of the Nazi doctrine and Nazi methods of torture and cruelty. When some of us raised this matter in the House, we were not believed. Even those who have been to the trials at which evidence of definite proof of the tortures has been given, such as the dashing of children's brains out on the pavement, and all the rest of the horrific crimes, found it almost incredible. That movement in Germany began in circumstances similar to the circumstances in which it is being "tried on" in this country.

Let us not misunderstand the position. The Nazis lied. I remember seeing in the House books which were distributed by them which contained statements purporting to come from Jewish leaders— trade union leaders, and others—that the hair of nobody's head was being, or would be, harmed. It was the preliminary to one of the most ghastly outrages on humanity that has ever taken place. That is why I make no apology for endeavouring once again to impress upon the Minister that he must mot imagine that the kind of meeting that is beting held at the present time can be easily overlooked, or should be easily overlooked.

As the law stands, a police officer is enjoined not to allow a meeting to be held if there is apprehension of a breach of the peace. Certainly, we should not lean backwards to give opportunities for spreading their hateful propaganda, particularly to those who acclaim Hitler and all that he did, with all its vicious-ness and terrifying results. These are matters which we cannot take Lightly. I beg the Minister to reconsider the cases on the subject that I have already put before him. My introduction should at least cause the Minister to realise that if the law permits him to prevent these meetings, he should do so.

Now, a word about Trafalgar Square. Of all places in the world, meetings of this kind should not be allowed in Trafalgar Square. People come there for innocent enjoyment—feeding pigeons, for example. Take as an example those interested in the Common Market. If they come to Trafalgar Square and hear the kind of thing that is being said there —many of them, possibly, have been incarcerated in concentration camps— what are they to think of us and the methods that we allow to be used to besmirch the good name of civilisation?

Arguments have been very well put concerning the position in law. I believe that there is no question about there being no absolute right to hold these meetings. Those who hold the meetings let it be known beforehand by their behaviour that they are purporting to incite. That is the kind of language they use. I have documents which were sent out when Mosley was inarching through the streets of London before. Has he yet stated that he is no longer prepared to advocate Hitler's views? Has he told his henchmen that they should not do so? Are not his henchmen doing it continuously?

What right have we to allow a meeting to be held—the next one is on 2nd September—by a body from which a publication is issued which is full of anti-semitism and full of the most terrible abuse? These actions are obviously an incitement to a breach of the peace.

It is no good leaders of the Jewish community or others telling their people not to go to the meetings. They will not listen to us, and we can hardly blame them. Why should a man who has fought gallantly, or otherwise helped his country, be prepared to allow dirt to be brought from under the carpet by these people and used to besmirch his name?

I appeal to the Minister to see to it that meetings by the advocates of Hitlerism are not held and that, pending the return of the House, he will tell those who have already been informed that there is a possibility that they can hold such meetings that approval is being withdrawn, and that he wild ensure that real freedom —freedom of wholsome speech and the peace of mind and of thought of civilised human beings—is preserved.

I am very anxious to hear what the Under-Secretary will have to say on the points that are submitted to him and, therefore, I do not propose to speak for very long. I must take the House and those who read our proceedings back to what happened before.

In the area which is part of my constituency I saw this whole business develop and its effects upon the police and the citizens. I can see the same thing happening again. If this place is to be allowed as a venue for the dissemination of this violent, malicious propaganda, it will virtually mean that we shall get back to the situation in which the platform of one political side was put up in the morning and the platform of the other side at a later time. When the shops were closed there was a clash between the contestants as to who had the right to speak in the area. As a consequence, traders and residents there were living in fear of their lives. Their trade fell away because people would not go near and we reached a situation where action had to be taken.

I am one of those who believe in the night of free speech as something which it is vitally necessary for us to defend. I cannot indulge in the legal arguments of my hon. Friend, but I would say that we had to do something about it. We had to go to the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, with regard to the march in the East End, and eventually the uniforms of this particular group were banned, the marches were banned and by agreement of all the political panties meetings in this area were banned.

What do we see now? There is a return already to the wearing of uniforms. It is true that they are probably not the same uniforms as worn in those days, but, according to the Press today, there is to be a camp where people will be present in uniform and jackboots. We find now that apart from meetings the provocation exists merely in the presence of the individual. We are getting provocation by the marches of people who go to those meetings.

I put this simple point to the Undersecretary. As I argued the other day, the residents and business people of this area are not really concerned in the main with the rival views of the gangs who attend the meetings. They say, "A plague on both your houses. Get out of our way". I know that that does not solve the problem. If the two factions want to meet in Victoria Park or Hyde Park, let them go there.

Let them get on with the dissemination of their ideas and let them argue them, but I would ask the Minister not to allow these gatherings to take place, because I am convinced that we should not allow them, just as we would not allow, for example, children to have a cricket match in a place where there are cucumber or tomato frames; we would not allow children to play with hard balls there and break everything up. What all this means is that we are allowing in this area, and this type of area, the creating of a bonfire, which is causing fear and detestation of free speech.

I hope that the Undersecretary will look at it from this point of view and will say that the powers given to protect citizens in particular areas will again be exercised during the Recess, so that when we come back we can look at any possible amendment of the law. This is what I am asking the Home Office to do, and I hope that we shall be successful after our submission today.

The House is discussing a matter which is obviously attracting great public attention and causing very acute concern. The short exchange by Question and Answer yesterday, in my opinion, left the position even more obscure than I thought it was before, and I hope that something the Minister will say this afternoon will clear up the anxiety felt by my hon. Friends and myself and hon. Members on the other side of the House. There is no need for me to reiterate what my hon. Friends have said, with what anxiety and alarm we fear the re-recrudescence of any Fascism or Nazism or any movement in this country calculated to stir up racial hatred. We have all gone through experiences which show the abuses and evils which that can lead to.

As I understood what the Home Secretary was saying yesterday, he was trying to hold the balance between stopping this from occurring in our midst and trying to protect freedom of speech, which we all cherish as one of national traditions, but I would urge that there is no conflict whatever between freedom of speech, on the one hand, and, on the other, the duty of the Home Office and the police to preserve public order.

Parenthetically I pay my tribute to the patience, the tact, the restraint, the tolerance with which the police have handled some difficult situations, but I do not regard it as fair to ask the police over and over again to attend in their hundreds to protect Sir Oswald Mosley or somebody else, and to give him police protection for a meeting or a demonstration which is deliberately held in a particular place at a particular time, calculated to be provocative, in order to incite racial hatred and prejudice. The police ought not to be put in that position.

What is this argument about freedom of speech? Freedom of speech, in my opinion, is not violated because we stop a Nazi organisation from having either a procession or a demonstration at a particular place or a particular time. I cannot think that it has anything to do with freedom of speech if we try to prevent a gang of people deliberately going to Ridley Road, a Jewish area, and there intimidating and provoking, and propagating anti-semitism.

Take a parallel case. One is entitled, if one wants to, in Hyde Park or Victoria Park or anywhere else, to preach anti-papalism, to speak against the Church of Rome. That is one of the legitimate freedoms of speech, religious freedom. But can it be said that a party of Protestants or anti-papists would be entitled to organise a meeting of their most violent supporters in the precincts of say, Brompton Oratory or Westminster Cathedral on a Sunday, or other religious festival, at a particular place and at a particular time, to do something calculated to provoke and to lead to a breach of the peace?

That is not freedom of speech. No one has that kind of freedom. We must not confuse freedom of speech with freedom of assembly. In fact, there is no right of public assembly. There is a right for an individual to go to a certain place if he wants to, and for others to go with him, but there is no right in our constitution for a person who wants to pronounce violent opinions, calculated to inflame, to gather with him a mob and go to a certain place in order to propagate his vicious doctrine, and to have police protection while he is doing so.

I agree with my hon. Friends that the case of Duncan and Jones, decided by the Court of Appeal, consisting, among others, of Lord Hawart and Mr. Justice Humphreys, is very informative on this subject. If the law is as has been kid down, and if the practice is—as one might gather from two or three recent examples—that the police can stop a meeting after it has been in progress for three or four minutes because they apprehend that a breach of peace is likely to result, I cannot see how it serves either the interest of the freedom of speech or any alleged freedom of lawful assembly to stop it then any more than would be the case if it were not allowed to start.

If it is done merely because of some traditional respect for allowing a person to speak until he uses inflammatory language, we have got into a ridiculous situation. That kind of practice leads to riotous assemblies, and produces the kind of trouble that we have had recently in Dudley, Trafalgar Square and Ridley Road. If the police have that power and exercise it, it seems to me to be rational and logical that they should also have the right to intervene before that degree of violence and uproar result.

Therefore, I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member opposite, that the Home Secretary should not only consider what amendments are required to the Public Order Act—I think that it should be strengthened, but it would be out of order to go into that question now—but should also, together with the Minister of Public Building and Works, where he is involved, use the powers that now exist to take steps in advance to prevent meetings being held which are known to be bound to lead to breaches of the peace and public unrest. I am very concerned about this matter, at this time when we are breaking up for the Summer Recess.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary seemed to say that if we did as has been suggested we should be creating a situation where meetings planned by anybody could be frustrated by newspaper or periodical announcements. That is not the case. Let us all hope that the Press will not advertise these meetings, but whether or not it does, the proposal put forward by my hon. Friends and myself does not amount to saying that anybody, by announcing his intention to do something in advance, can prevent what would otherwise be a lawful meeting. We are saying that where it is known that Sir Oswald Mosley is going to a place like Ridley Road, in circumstances where he is doing something deliberately calculated to produce a breach of the peace and to cause racial hatred, steps should be taken to prevent him before he holds his meeting, in the interests both of the public and of the police.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that during the Recess the Home Office will be prepared to take the action which hon. Members on both sides of the House have advocated today.

There are two distinguishing features which we should keep separate in our minds when considering this subject. They are the question of the freedom of speech and the question of public order. It seems to me that the aspect which should concern us is that of the freedom of speech. It is that with which we should be concerned today. I agree with hon. Members who have drawn the distinction between freedom of speech and what is, in fact, licence to express these obnoxious opinions. One could draw many parallels. People are not permitted to stand on platforms and say things which are obscene. There is a law against that. I say that the opinions promulgated by these people are morally obscene. If I may use an analogy which is a little more far-fetched, the sale of poisons without proper safeguards is proscribed and the opinions which are being expressed by these people are poisonous and could damage the minds of those who hear them.

Even in this House one cannot express any opinion one pleases. One cannot insult another hon. Member. There are restrictions on what we can say, and they are perfectly legitimate. We do not object to them. I consider this the crux of the whole matter. It has nothing to do with the disorders which have taken place, and we should not allow that to influence our thinking. After all, there have been disorders at perfectly legitimate meetings, such as the one held by the right hon. Member who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We do not for that reason say that meetings held by the Labour Party should be proscribed.

To me it is a dangerous line of reasoning that, because disorders have taken place at meetings, they should be proscribed. Otherwise we should get gangs of thugs breaking up meetings in order that the Home Secretary might be persuaded to say that he would not allow meetings organised by certain bodies to be held in future because they were bound to lead to public disorder. It is the doctrines expressed at the meetings which I think might lead us to the conclusion that the dregs of humanity who are conducting these meetings should not be allowed to hold them.

We have already heard that we fought a war which lasted six years in order to defeat Nazism and that during that war millions of people were killed defending true democracy. It is also the fact that six million Jews were sent to die in gas chambers, by people who held the same opinions as Sir Oswald Mosley and others of his kind. I am not the Home Secretary and it is not my job to tell the right hon. Gentlueman how, within the framework of existing legislation, he could do what I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would like him to do. I should like him to give some assurance that, within the framework of existing legislation, he will take steps to prevent these meetings from being held now. We should like some assurance now. We do not want to wait for three months, during which time disorder may occur on which this House would not have an opportunity to comment.

I do not understand why the Government have not found time to debate the Bill which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) seeks to introduce. That Measure appears to me to go to the root of the problem. I had not realised that there was in existence a resolution passed by the United Nations enjoining us to do just what the hon. Member for Eton and Slough would like us to do. However, it is too late for that now. The Home Secretary will have to work within the framework of the existing legislation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance that we can do something within the next few weeks before more meetings are held similar to those at which disorder has occurred. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us this assurance today, I think that he has a grave responsibility for what may well happen.

I begin by congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on his good fortune in drawing this occasion for the debate and congratulate him on the use he has made of it. This is the last debate of the Session and perhaps one of the most important topics which has come up during the Session. Although I have been in my present office only sixteen days, this subject has been in my mind day and night ever since I came to the Home Office. I can assure the House that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have any inclination to under-estimate the gravity of the incidents which have happened, or to treat them lightly.

It was by treating this kind of thing lightly that the Nazis were enabled to come into power in Germany and other detestable tyrannies arose in other countries. It may seem to this House unlikely that the seeds of tyranny should be sown among the pigeons and tourists in Trafalgar Square or in the peaceful neighbourhoods of Hackney or of Dudley, but that view may not be shared by some of those who witnessed these incidents. I spent the whole afternoon of 22nd July in Trafalgar Square, apart from twenty minutes which I took off to look at the Leonardo Cartoon. A very large number of people did the same. They were, I think, more interested in looking at the Leonardo than looking at Mosley.

These incidents which I wish to recapitulate briefly were unfortunately of very great gravity, which is all the more remarkable for the fact that the same people have been holding similar meetings for a number of years in public places without the same thing having happened. The first occasion was on 1st July, and I think that was probably the worst. This was organised by the Nationalist Socialist movement, a breakaway from another breakaway from the British Union. I suppose one can only say that one or other of these organisa-sations is more vicious that the other, but if I were asked to say which was the more vicious I could only take refuge in the remark of Dr. Johnson that there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.

On this occasion twenty people were arrested and dealt with by the courts under the Public Order Act. As the House knows, the principal speaker is to appear before the court on 20th August to answer a summons. His case is sub judice and we have to suspend decision on some of the points raised by hon. Members today because interpretation placed by the courts on the Act in his case on 20th August may give us useful guidance for dealing with the problem in future. I should say in parenthesis that when my right hon. Friend referred to thinking over the matter in the next three months he did not in the least mean that nothing would be done in those months, but was referring to the fact that it is impossible to legislate until the House reassembles in three months' time.

The second case was on 22nd July when the Mosley organisation, the British Union, held its meeting. I can say as a witness on that occasion that in my judgment—and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who was also present, has authorised me to say that he confirms this—the police behaved in the highest traditions of their service. In the square on that day I saw very few people whom I could identify as Jews and practically no coloured people. I think that we owe them both a debt of gratitude for keeping away from that disgraceful occasion. I think it an important point that on that occasion it was impossible to bring any charge against the promoters of the meeting because violence broke out the instant they opened their mouths. Under existing law they could not have been charged with any offence. There was also a meeting in Manchester and a meeting in the East End of London, both of which have been referred to. In both cases there were violence, arrests, and convictions. In both cases, again, the meetings were virtually prevented from beginning.

Finally, there was a disturbance of a rather different kind earlier this week in Dudley where there were arrests and convictions, but I propose to leave that on one side because it differs from the other cases in that no organised meeting took place and also because no one has suggested that any new powers are needed to deal with the kind of hooliganism which broke out in Dudley.

What are the points which arise from these experiences? The first point is that everyone agrees that this type of disorder cannot be tolerated. The police have taken vigorous action under their existing powers, and the Home Secretary has assured the House that he will continue to act with a firmness in any future situations of the same kind. All that has been done within the existing powers.

The question has been asked whether the law as it stands is adequate. It must be remembered that the law does not give anyone power to prevent any such meeting from assembling. I know that this question has been raised today by hon. Members who are much better qualified in the law than I am. They have quoted two cases of which they were kind enough to give me notice in advance so that, although not legally qualified myself, I am able to inform the House of the excellent advice which I have received upon these cases.

The view that the police have a power in appropriate circumstances to prohibit a meeting in advance on the ground that it will certainly result in breaches of the peace rested on the observations of the judges in the case of Regina v. Cunningham, Grahame and Burns in 1888 and Duncan v. Jones in 1936. It is clear from the case of Duncan v. Jonas that the police can close a meeting from the outset, and in that way prevent it from being held, if the police officers on the spot have reasonable cause to apprehend that a breach of the peace will result. I have studied this case in my unlawyer-like way, and there is no doubt what happened in that case. The police prevented the meeting from taking place, though they told the lady who wanted to hold it that she was free to hold it round the corner 200 yards away. But the decision in this case appears to go no further than the point which I have made, and I am advised that it is not easy to see how this case could fairly be regarded as authority for any wider proposition.

Meetings have been advertised for August, September and October under

"Hitler was right. Racial Ruin."

Surely my hon. Friend will have ample evidence to prevent those meetings from taking place.

I am explaining to the House what is the existing law. As I understand these cases, it is not that there is power to prevent the assembly of people. There is power to prevent a meeting from proceeding.

I hope that the hon. Member will look at the case which I quoted of Regina v. Cunningham, Grahame and Burns because in this case notice was issued by the Commissioner of Police staling that the meeting must not be held.

I was coming to that very case. It is true, as in that case, that the police could intimate in advance to the promoters of a meeting about to be held, say, on the following day, that in their view it would result in disorder and ought not to be held, but the judge stated in the case of Regina v. Cunningham, Grahame and Burns that such an intimation has in itself no legal effect and that the ultimate test in law must be the apprehension on the part of the police who are actually present at the place where the meeting is to take place that a breach of the peace will result.

I do not want to get into an argument with those who know the law far better than I know it about the intricacies of the case. I simply say that my right hon. Friend and I will keep an open mind on this question. I am not closing the door now. We shall look carefully at these cases again. I can only say that this is the preliminary reaction which my legal advisers have given me, and I hope that I may leave the point with the door open in order to get on with the substance of what I have to say.

If someone sets up a platform in a residential area and proposes to hold a meeting, is the Minister telling us that the police are powerless to stop it?

No. At that point the police have the power. But they cannot prohibit it in advance, with the single exception of Trafalgar Square, which is a case apart under the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.

Would the hon. Member bear in mind two propositions. First of all, it cannot be asserted that there is any right to hold a meeting of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred and, secondly, there is a duty on the Home Secretary to prevent public disorder and breaches of the peace.

I will certainly bear those two points in mind. My right hon. Friend will pay the closest attention to everything that has been said in the debate. I am only trying to state the law as it at present stands. I will pass over a number of details which I could have added on that point.

We are inevitably driven back to considering, if this advice is correct, whether the law needs amendment. My right hon. Friend has assured the House that he will give close consideration to representations which have been made to him with this end in view. We must recall that the Public Order Act, 1936, was expressly designed to deal with disorders, which were indeed on a greater scale, though of a similar kind, to what is happening today. Therefore, it is not a case of applying an old law to an entirely new situation for which it was not designed. This will show how difficult it is likely to be to find suitable amendments.

It is true that there is a difference in the situation today, to which hon. Members have drawn attention. One difference is that a war has been fought in between to extirpate a gang of vile and despicable creatures who murdered human beings by the million because of their race. It is true also that those creatures who were extirpated counted Mosley, whatever excuses he may choose to make today, as their best and, thank God, their only friend in this country. We must bear in mind also that there is another difference due ultimately to the same cause, that the conflict between those neo-Fascists or pseudo-Fascists and their antagonists today is a much more unequal one than in 1936, and I am glad to say that according to the best figures I can muster the total strength of all these detestable organisations together runs only to a few hundreds.

All these considerations and others urged in the debate must be taken into account, but there is one of very great importance to which I should like to refer. We have to admit that none of the proposed amendments which have been put forward by right hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) would have touched the Mosley meeting on 22nd July, for two reasons. First, the meeting was broken up before it began, or as it began, so no one had any time to commit any of the new offences which it is proposed to write into the law. Secondly, Mosley has always been very careful to keep within the law. He would undoubtedly do so if the law were amended, but undoubtedly his meetings would still be the subject of violent attack.

These considerations must weigh with us against precipitate amendment of the law, although I am not ruling out amendment altogether. It is already an offence to use words calculated to produce disorder, and that might well be interpreted in the present public mood to include words inciting racial hatred. This is why I ask hon. Members to await the case before the courts on 20th August, because the interpretation then placed on the law may be of guidance to us.

At the end of this short debate I think that I can fairly summarise the feelings which I believe we all share in this way. Everyone deplores what has happened and no right-minded person sympathises with any of the views which have been expressed by or attributed to—because in some cases we cannot say expressed —speakers at these Fascist meetings. The police have taken and will continue to take the strongest action to deal with such disorders and the courts have powers to impose heavy penalties. It is our hope that action by the police and the courts, with the general condemnation of public opinion, will prevent a recurrence, but it is not yet demonstrated on either side that the law is inadequate, although some hon. Members have suggested that it is more adequate than we think.

My right hon. Friend will consider all the representations which have been made to him. Before considering amending legislation, he would have to be satisfied both that it is needed and that it would be effective and enforceable. These will not be easy decisions. My right hon. Friend intends to hold, as he has said, the balance between the traditional right of free speech and the prevention of conduct which amounts to deliberate provocation and disorder, but I am sure that the House would wish him also to remember that traditional freedom should not be restricted simply because violent methods are being used to silence and suppress opinions with which most of us happen to disagree strongly.